In some individuals, a Babesia infection can be fatal or cause serious complications in immunocompromised patients. In others, it can be asymptomatic and go unrecognized. In this study, investigators demonstrate how difficult it can be to eradicate Babesia.
The 74-year-old patient was admitted to the hospital in August 2021 with a 2-day history of fatigue and fevers. She was immunocompromised and had a history of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma treated with chemotherapy, polymyalgia rheumatica treated with low dose steroids (prednisone 5 mg/day, plus a short trial of a tocilizumab [a disease-modifying antirheumatic drug]), and cold autoimmune hemolytic anemia.
“A peripheral blood smear was positive for B. microti (0.2% parasitemia),” according to the authors. Her Hgb dropped as low as 6.5 g/dl. She received 10 units of blood.
She was initially treated with a 7-day course of azithromycin and atovaquone. She was also prescribed steroids. Her parasitemia resolved.
However, the woman developed recurrent fatigue and fever with a recurrence of parasitemia (0.3%).
The clinician planned to retreat her with a 6-week course of azithromycin and atovaquone, but added clindamycin due to a persistent parasitemia and fatigue. She was subsequently switched to quinine plus oral clindamycin.
“This antiparasitic drug regimen was discontinued on 20 January 2022, because she developed symptoms consistent with cinchonism (hearing loss, vertigo, tinnitus),” wrote the authors.
Cinchonism resolved after stopping her quinine plus oral clindamycin.
“She then developed severe fatigue and subjective fevers on 22 February 2022 with a recurrence of the babesia parasitemia (<0.1%), along with evidence of worsening hemolysis,” wrote the authors.
She was retreated with oral clindamycin along with a reduced dose of quinine. Her parasitemia continued.
The woman was then prescribed off label tafenoquine, as she tested negative for glucose-6-phospate dehydrogenase deficiency.
“She was started on oral tafenoquine 200 mg once a day for 3 days (loading dose) from 7-9 March 2022, and then 200 mg once per week thereafter starting on 16 March 2022,” wrote the authors. The Hgb rose from 6.5 g/dl to 13.3 g/dL without transfusions.
Tafenoquine was stopped after 6 weeks due to neutropenia. “The neutrophil count reached a nadir level of 325 cells/uL,” wrote the authors.
The woman’s severe fatigue, parasitemia (<0.1%), and hemolysis recurred.
“She was started on a new drug regimen of oral azithromycin 1000 mg once daily, atovaquone liquid suspension 750 mg once daily, and four Malarone® tablets once daily (each tablet consisting of 250 mg atovaquone plus 100 mg of proguanil) on 2 June 2022,” wrote the authors.
By the end of June, PCR testing for Babesia was negative.
However, “It was planned to continue treatment for at least 12 weeks,” wrote the authors, “and even to consider chronic suppressive therapy going forward.”
Prasad et al. described two previous cases where tafenoquine was effective for Babesia.
The authors concluded:
“Therefore, based on available data, tafenoquine as a single agent may, or may not, be curative of B. microti infection in a chronically immunocompromised patient.”
“Clearly, more clinical studies and more studies conducted in animal models are needed to optimize the use of tafenoquine in order to prevent a relapse of B. microti infection in chronically immunocompromised patients with babesiosis when the drug is discontinued.”
References:
Prasad, P.J. and G.P. Wormser, Failure of an Approximately Six Week Course of Tafenoquine to Completely Eradicate Babesia microti Infection in an Immunocompromised Patient. Pathogens, 2022. 11(9).
Breaking! Researcher claims mRNA COVID-19 vaccines can increase serious adverse events; calls for it to be withdrawn from the market
By – TIMESOFINDIA.COM
Updated: Jan 9, 2023
Image credit: Joseph Fraiman via Dr Aseem Malhotra/Twitter
Joseph Fraiman, an emergency physician and a clinical scientist from Louisiana, claims that the messenger RNA COVID-19 vaccine can increase serious adverse events in people, including sudden cardiac deaths.
In a video that surfaced online, Fraiman, who was a lead author of the peer reviewed research that re-analysed Pfizer & Moderna trials for mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, says,
“We found the vaccine increases serious adverse events at a rate of one in 800. At the time of the publication, my co-authors and I did not believe our single study warranted the withdrawal of mRNA vaccines from the market. However, since its publication, new pieces of evidence have come to light and this has caused me to reevaluate my position.” ~ Dr. Joseph Fraiman
________________
**Comment**
Fraiman’s studydone all the way back in Sept. 2022, reviewed research that reanalyzed the Pfizer and Moderna trials which found the “vaccines” increases serious adverse events at a rate of 1 in 800. Dr. John Campbell goes over it here.
Sadly, nothing was said about this high rate of adverse reactions by our corrupt public health authorities, and the researchers quietly published their paper and didn’t speak up because they felt more research needed to be done. Meanwhile, thousands have been maimed or have perished.
Importantly:
“Now we have multiple autopsy studies that find essentially conclusive evidence that the ‘vaccines’ are inducing sudden cardiac deaths, yet the rate of these ‘vaccine’ deaths remains unknown.” ~ Dr. Joseph Fraiman
He then adds that nations using the mRNA injections have experienced excess mortality that correlates with the “vaccine” rollout & booster campaign. There is a correlation between nations with high excess mortality and high “vaccine” uptake. Researchers analyzing this data were unable to identify any other reasonable cause other than the “vaccines.”
Go here to see Edward Dowd‘s Excess Mortality Project, VAERS Data Project, and VSAFE Data Project.
In this 3 minute video, cardiologist Dr. McCullough describes two teenage boys who die after days 3 & 4 after the Pfizer shot. The autopsies showed death due to “vaccine” induced myocarditis.
It doesn’t get any clearer than this.
Sadly, this is too little, too late for many people.
Dr. Peter Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, is enamored with dangerous virus tinkering, censorship and state-directed cyberattacks on civilians. He decries the benefits of whole food and nutrition and is a leading advocate for biomedical tyranny and the murder of independent thinkers
In a professionally produced PR video for the World Health Organization, Hotez refers to vaccine safety advocates as “anti-science aggressors” and claims “anti-vaccine activism” has become “a major killing force globally”
Hotez ignores data showing the jab does more harm than good. For example, a recent Cleveland Clinic study concluded that the risk of COVID-19 infection “increased with the number of vaccine doses previously received”
Cleveland Clinic also found the bivalent COVID-19 booster was only 30% effective in preventing infection “during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine”
In the fall of 2021, about 3 in 10 adults who died from COVID-19 were jabbed or boosted. By April 2022, 6 in 10 adults who died from COVID-19 were jabbed or boosted, and that remained true through August 2022, which is the latest data available
As Dr. Anthony Fauci steps down from his position as director of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and top chief of the American bioweapons program, the scene is open for another word-wrangling science bungler to step into the limelight.
Seemingly vying for the position of lead propagandist for Big Pharma and the global Deep State is Dr. Peter Hotez, dean for the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston — a scientist enamored with dangerous virus tinkering, censorship and state-directed cyberattacks on civilians, who decries the benefits of whole food and nutrition and is a leading advocate for biomedical tyranny and the murder of independent thinkers.
Vaccine Safety Advocates Are Now ‘Anti-Science Aggressors’
An M.D. who writes articles on Substack under the moniker A Midwestern Doctor recently addressed the hateful rhetoric being thrown about by Hotez.1 “Although I am used to seeing inflammatory approaches … being used to silence debates, I was nonetheless quite taken aback by the WHO’s recent tweet,” he writes.
The WHO tweeted out a video2 (above) featuring Hotez, in which he refers to vaccine safety advocates as “anti-science aggressors” — a term he coined in a 2021 article3 — and claims “anti-vaccine activism” has become “a major killing force globally.”4 According to Hotez, 200,000 Americans lost their lives to COVID-19 because they refused the experimental COVID jab.
Hotez goes on to claim that “anti-science now kills more people than gun violence, global terrorism, nuclear proliferation or cyber attacks” — a statement that makes anti-science sound threatening but actually absolves it, seeing how nuclear proliferation and cyber attacks have killed no one (at least not to my knowledge), and the death toll from terrorism is infinitesimal compared to things like preventable medical errors.
Pouring additional fuel to the fire, he makes the absolute statement that the anti-vaccine movement is a “far-right” political movement. “This is the new face of anti-science aggression,” he says, “so we need political solutions to address this.” In other words, he wants government to pull out the big guns and enforce a one-sided “consensus.”
Hotez Stirs the Pot With Flawed Assumptions
As explained by A Midwestern Doctor, the central claim in that video appears to be based on an October 2021 study5 that estimated 163,000 COVID-19 deaths “could have been prevented by vaccination since June 2021, when safe and effective COVID-19 vaccines were widely available to all adults in the U.S.” However, as A Midwestern Doctor points out, there are several problems with this argument:6
•“Since so many deaths not caused by COVID-19 have been classified as COVID-19 deaths, we don’t actually know how many people died from the illness (this study just assumed the official but inflated figure as accurate).
•In Pfizer’s trial, the survival benefit from the vaccine worsened with time (this has also been observed outside the trials), and at 6 months follow-up (where the trial was abruptly terminated).
•More people who were vaccinated died than those who were unvaccinated (which means that it is impossible that there could have been a net gain of life through vaccinating). Since this is the longest clinical trial that was performed on the vaccines, its conclusion must stand until a longer trial is conducted.
•The vaccines we are using have caused SARS-CoV-2 to rapidly evolve into variants for which it no longer offers protection. For this reason, the alleged benefits of the vaccine have had to be continually modified because it failed to meet each of its previously promised metrics (e.g., it does not prevent transmission of COVID-197).
•The study fails to account for the fact that national death rates consistently increased or stayed the same (but never decrease) following COVID vaccination campaigns …
•The estimate also fails to account for the fact that life insurance data has shown that there has been an unprecedented spike in deaths for age groups rarely expected to otherwise die, following the mass vaccination campaigns.”
Research Shows COVID Jab Raises Risk of COVID-19 Infection
Hotez, the WHO and the PR firm that made that video also ignore data showing that the COVID jab increases your risk of contracting COVID-19 over time. For example, a Cleveland Clinic preprint8 posted December 19, 2022, concluded that the risk of COVID-19 infection “increased … with the number of vaccine doses previously received.”
Moreover, the bivalent COVID-19 booster was only 30% effective in preventing infection “during the time when the virus strains dominant in the community were represented in the vaccine.”
So much for “safe and effective.” The boosters provide minimal protection when well-matched to the circulating strain, and as its protection wanes, it leaves you at higher risk of infection than before. Deceiving people into taking this product? Now THAT’S anti-scientific aggression.
The Jabbed Now Account for Most COVID-19 Deaths
We also have U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data that confirm Cleveland Clinic’s findings. As reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF):9
“The share of COVID-19 deaths among those who are vaccinated has risen. In fall 2021, about 3 in 10 adults dying of COVID-19 were vaccinated or boosted. But by January 2022, as we showed in an analysis10 posted on the Peterson-KFF Health System Tracker, about 4 in 10 deaths were vaccinated or boosted.
By April 2022, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) data11 show that about 6 in 10 adults dying of COVID-19 were vaccinated or boosted, and that’s remained true through at least August 2022 (the most recent month of data).
The data from this chart come from the CDC, which collects data on the number of deaths by vaccination status from 30 health departments (including states and cities) across the country.
In order to be counted as vaccinated, a person must be at least two weeks out from completing their primary series … Similarly, to be counted as having a booster, a person must be at least two weeks out from their booster or additional dose before testing positive. People who were partially vaccinated are not included in this data.”
The irony here is that the data Hotez cites in the video match an earlier KFF Health System report, but when he was presented with the updated dataset from the same source, now showing that 170,000 vaxxed Americans have died from COVID, he simply blocked the person who shared it.12
A Poster-Boy for Emotional and Physical Ill Health
Of course, maintaining a propaganda narrative demands that you ignore everything that might poke holes in it, and Hotez is no stranger to propaganda tactics. He’s been a relentless vaccine pusher and denier of vaccine-induced autism, even though (or perhaps because) his own child is autistic. As noted by A Midwestern Doctor:13
“Prior to this recent push to criminalize those questioning vaccine safety (which is evil), I viewed him as a comical individual who I genuinely felt bad for, and someone — who like many that do immense harm to the world — is simply controlled by habitual fixations they are never able to move beyond.
I have not done a deep dive into his background. However, everything I’ve seen is consistent with an unhappy, frustrated individual who frequently gets scammed by life and is both physically and emotionally unhealthy.”
Case in point: Hotez’s Joe Rogan interview (clip of which is featured in the video above), where he admitted being a junk food-aholic and intends to stay that way. Rogan, who is neither a doctor nor a nutritionist, actually ended up lecturing Hotez about the merits of a healthy diet. As noted by Dr. Pierre Kory:14
“In just a few minutes, Peter Hotez inadvertently shows the world exactly what has gone wrong with our medical system and why his endless push for more vaccines will never create health.”
Indeed, as Ryan Cristiàn, editor-in-chief of The Last American Vagabond, points out in the video above, Hotez nonchalantly discusses his unhealthy choices (and on the largest podcast on the planet) as if it’s perfectly OK to cast the foundations for health aside — because we have vaccines.
“I think he genuinely, to some degree, doesn’t understand why that’s so stupid,” Cristiàn says. “But on the other side of it, there’s obviously a push to make it about, ‘that’s not real health [i.e., food and lifestyle], vaccines are real health.’ It’s just this alarming undertone.”
What’s in a Vaccine?
In that Rogan interview,15Hotez also makes the ridiculously unscientific claim that vaccines contain just antigens in saline, basically mimicking an advertisement by the Colorado department of health (below). Anyone who knows anything about vaccines — especially the COVID shot — can see how utterly and shamefully deceptive this is.
Another gross piece of propaganda was recently put out by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) (video16 below). The ad chastises the West for withholding COVID shots from Africa, resulting in it having one of the lowest jab rates in the world.
Set three years into the future, it claims the virus kept mutating into ever more dangerous variants, which is the complete opposite of what’s been happening in the real world. It portrays Africa as a continent ravaged by COVID-19 due to lack of COVID shots, yet in the real world, Africa has fared far better in terms of cases and deaths than highly-jabbed nations. Frankly, it’s so distorted and contrary to facts, it’s hard to watch.
Hotez Implicated in Creation of Chimeric Coronavirus
Since the beginning of the COVID outbreak, Hotez has repeatedly accused those who disagree with him of committing a hate crime, which is a rather infantile defense mechanism. It’s quite typical for people who know they have no grounds for their argument to resort to name-calling and threats instead.
Not only has he called on government to use its military and intelligence forces to quash public discussion about COVID jab dangers, he’s also been a vocal defender of the natural origin theory, dismissing evidence of a lab leak as pure fiction and conspiracy theory.
This too is an example of that same defense mechanism. It was recently revealed that Hotez funded risky gain-of-function research on coronaviruses in Wuhan, China, so no wonder he wanted people to shut up about the possibility of the virus being a lab creation. His own work might be implicated in its creation. As reported by U.S. Right to Know (USRTK):17
“While casting concerns about Wuhan’s labs as ‘fringe,’ Hotez has not mentioned his own connection to a project involving a laboratory-generated chimeric SARS-related coronavirus that has come under Congress’ microscope. The project was helmed by Zhengli Shi, a senior scientist and ‘virus hunter’ at the Wuhan Institute of Virology nicknamed the ‘Bat Lady.’
As part of his NIH grant, Hotez subcontracted funding for research on combined or ‘chimeric’ coronaviruses, a scientific paper18 shows. Hotez’s grant19 underwrote two of Shi’s collaborators on the project.
In the 2017 paper20 co-funded by Hotez, Shi and her colleagues generated a recombinant virus from two SARS-related coronaviruses: ‘rWIV1-SHC014S.’ It’s not clear whether the paper co-funded by Hotez should have been stopped under a temporary ‘pause’ on gain-of-function work before 2017.
However, some independent biosecurity experts have said research on this chimeric virus in some ways epitomizes lapses in NIH oversight of risky research in the years before the COVID-19 pandemic.
A prior study21 of one of the coronaviruses that comprised the chimera, WIV1, found it to be ‘poised for human emergence.’ Another prior paper22 on the other coronavirus, SHC014, stated that its future study in lab-generated viruses may be ‘too risky to pursue.’
‘The work here should have been at the very least, heavily scrutinized,’ said David Relman, a Stanford microbiologist and biosecurity expert. ‘This work should have been heavily reviewed for [gain-of-function], and probably should have been subject to the pause prior to December 2017.'”
Hotez, One of the Most Shockingly Hateful People in Medicine
Hotez has made headlines a number of times through the years, typically delivering some kind of hateful rhetoric. He’s publicly stated he wants to “snuff out” vaccine skeptics,23 for example, and in May 2021 called for cyberwarfare measures to be deployed against people who share vaccine safety information.24
Hotez has repeatedly spewed vitriol at parents of vaccine-injured children and called for physical harm and imprisonment of people who don’t agree with the one-size-fits-all vaccine agenda, so it was rather funny when he whined and complained about getting bombarded with “anti-vaxx hate speech” in response to his cyberwarfare call.25
Hotez is not above casting an evil eye on other scientists either. As reported by journalist Paul Thacker in an August 9, 2022, Substack article titled, “Peter Hotez Sees Aggression Everywhere But in the Mirror”:26
“Patrolling scientific discourse, Hotez has a knack for discovering ‘antiscience’ in anyone who disagrees with him. Jeffrey Sachs, economics professor at Columbia University and chair of an international commission on COVID-19, charged in a wide-ranging interview27 last week that the National Institutes of Health and allied scientists were impeding an investigation into how the COVID-19 pandemic started …
Hotez went on the assault, tweeting that Sachs, as leader of the Lancet Commission, did not represent the views of science. Much like a Pentagon general wrapping himself in freedom and the flag to demand more federal monies for another foreign war … Hotez has been shrouding himself in the mantle of science to denigrate anyone who questions taxpayer funding for dangerous virus research by the National Institutes of Health.”
What Is Hotez Really Fighting For?
In his article,28 Thacker goes on to review several other bizarre incidences involving Hotez. For example, he referred to the scientific experts invited to testify before Congress as “fringe elements” testifying and promoting “outlandish conspiracies.” So much for Ph.D.s and med school. He also accused Sen. Rand Paul of promoting conspiracies.
Here’s the take-home: The reason Hotez rails against “anti-science” is because he can sense the danger the research community and vaccine industry are in.
If SARS-CoV-2 is conclusively proven to be a lab creation, it would put a massive spotlight on scientists involved in dual purpose viral research. Gain-of-function research may be banned altogether (as it should), which would sink many a career, including his own.
Similarly, public acknowledgement that the COVID jabs are a public health disaster would permanently and perhaps lethally injure the vaccine industry. So, all that hateful rhetoric? It really comes down to protecting self-serving interests.
Please see the following letter addressed to Dr. Raymond Dattwyler who owns 24 patents for Lyme disease that include diagnostic testing and vaccines both live bacteria and oral.
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “Raymond_Dattwyler@nymc.edu” <Raymond_Dattwyler@nymc.edu>
Cc: “npjvaccines@nature.com” <npjvaccines@nature.com>, “abarrett@utmb.edu” <abarrett@utmb.edu>, “R.W.Titball@exeter.ac.uk” <R.W.Titball@exeter.ac.uk>, “mgomesso@uthsc.edu” <mgomesso@uthsc.edu>
Date: 01/06/2023 2:46 PM
Subject: The year that shaped the outcome of the OspA vaccine for human Lyme disease
Department of Microbiology and Immunology
New York Medical College
Valhalla, NY
Raymond J. Dattwyler, Corresponding Author
Dear Dr. Dattwyler,
I read your manuscript with great interest as you call attention to a treatment-resistant Lyme arthritis with “no evidence of DNA” found in the joints of patients after antibiotic treatment.
For some strange reason however, I could not find the following 1995 publication within your paper identifying treatment-resistant neuroborreliosis:
We report an unusual patient with evidence of Borrelia burgdorferi infection who experienced repeated neurologic relapses despite aggressive antibiotic therapy. Each course of therapy was associated with a Jarisch-Herxheimer-like reaction. Although the patient never had detectable free antibodies to B. burgdorferi in serum or spinal fluid, the CSF was positive on multiple occasions for complexed anti-B. burgdorferi antibodies, B. burgdorferi nucleic acids and free antigen.
____________________________________________
In fact, Dr. Dattwyler there seems to be a great deal of “treatment-resistant” evidence published in multiple journals over the past three decades:
Does a chronic relapsing seronegative disease fit the vaccine model? If not, would that, in and of itself, be the hidden reason for denying chronic (treatment-resistant) Lyme disease for almost three decades? In other words, patent royalties and pharmaceutical profits over lifesaving care?
A response to this inquiry is requested.
Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH
Cc: Alan D.T. Barrett, PhD Editor-in-Chief
Rick Titball, PhD, DSc, Deputy Editor
What’s preventing your recovery from Lyme disease?
By Todd Maderis, ND
Jan. 3, 2023
As we begin a new year, I have spent time reflecting on what is preventing many people with complex chronic illnesses, including Lyme disease, from getting better.
If you’re one of the many people struggling to recover from chronic illness, I offer some thoughts for your consideration.
So, what is preventing people with chronic illnesses from getting better?
Access to physicians with experience treating Lyme disease
According to LymeDisease.org’s patient-driven research platform, MyLymeData, a significant obstacle to an accurate diagnosis is patient access to care by a healthcare provider experienced in Lyme disease and associated infections.
Almost 50% of respondents in the MyLymeData registry reported they saw over seven physicians before being diagnosed with Lyme disease. Treatments for Lyme disease are more effective the earlier they are implemented. Unfortunately, for 73% of respondents, it took over a year for a correct diagnosis.
In a MyLymeData survey of Lyme-treating doctors, physicians report the top three reasons patients receive a delayed diagnosis of Lyme disease are inadequate physician education about tick-borne diseases, false-negative lab results, and a prior misdiagnosis.
Barriers that contribute to a delayed or accurate diagnosis include poor insurance coverage for Lyme disease, healthcare costs, and a limited number of healthcare providers that diagnose and treat persistent Lyme disease.
As cases of Lyme disease rise in the United States and research studies demonstrate a clear need for improved diagnostics and treatment, we will likely see increased recognition and awareness by healthcare agencies and improved insurance coverage.
Where do people with chronic illnesses turn when they don’t have access to quality care?
When people do not have access to a physician experienced in treating Lyme disease, they often turn to online patient support groups for guidance. While these groups can be valuable sources of information and provide emotional support, the suggestions offered by one person may not be what is best for another.
Has the person seeking help been adequately tested for Lyme disease and all associated infections by a reputable tick-borne infection testing laboratory? Do they have additional variables undermining their health, such as high environmental toxin levels or immune system dysregulation, that must be addressed? What is the correct order of treatment?
Physicians treating complex chronic illnesses are challenged to identify all the possible underlying causes of a patient’s symptoms and implement effective treatment strategies. It would be difficult for a member of a support group who is not a physician to know what is best for another person.
Obtaining an accurate diagnosis
If you do not have a map, how do you get to where you want to go? Recovering from illness works the same way. An effective treatment strategy is only as good as the accuracy of the diagnosis. Nuances associated with Lyme disease lab tests create a challenge to getting an accurate diagnosis.
I only rely on reputable Lyme specialty laboratories to make a diagnosis. Testing for chronic viral infections, mold illness, heavy metal toxicity, digestive disorders, and more presents the same obstacle.
Conventional labs like LabCorp and Quest are fine for general markers like blood counts, chemistry panels, and thyroid hormones, but specialized labs need to be used for all the conditions mentioned above. Even within specialized laboratories, some provide more accurate data than others.
The labs that provide me (and my patients) with the best “map” change over time based on advances in testing and my clinical observations. If you tested for tick-borne infections or the above conditions over a year ago, the tests should be repeated because testing has improved. It’s essential to know the current status of the results.
Receiving effective treatments
If you have access to care from a physician experienced in treating Lyme disease and have identified all the underlying causes(s) of your symptoms, the next hurdle is employing effective treatments.
With correct diagnoses, the therapies need to be specific and intentional. Patients tell me they have been prescribed successive treatments for a diagnosis when each treatment did not work. This is like throwing the proverbial spaghetti at the wall and hoping it sticks. Of course, identifying efficacious therapies is challenging, but having a clear direction and using proven treatments is an effective strategy.
Losing hope of healing
People lose hope they will recover from their illness the longer they remain sick. It is disheartening to see patients feeling hopeless because they have been sick for years, have seen many doctors, and have tried dozens of treatments. Hopelessness results from one (or more) of the above reasons.
Some patients I see are mentally unable to move forward once they have an accurate diagnosis and access to effective treatments. It could be that they don’t believe they will ever recover because they have been down multiple dead-end roads of treatment. Some people are traumatized by their illness and have fear or anxiety about an adverse reaction to another treatment. Others do not have the support of their family or partners, possibly due to the invisible illness that is Lyme disease. As the saying goes, “if nothing changes, nothing changes.”
As we begin a new year, I encourage you to reflect upon your health to consider what prevents you from fully recovering from your chronic illness. The general challenges I outlined can serve as an algorithm to help you identify the obstacles to healing so you can take action that moves you closer to optimal health.
Dr. Todd Maderis is Founder and Medical Director of Marin Natural Medicine Clinic in Larkspur, CA. He blogs at DrToddMaderis.com.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 