Author Archive

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Lyme/MSIDS Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

https://www.lymedisease.org/mylymedata-clinician-lyme-survey-report/

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

By Lyme Policy Wonk

9/29/22

Previous studies have shown that patients who have persistent or chronic Lyme disease (PLD/ CLD) have a hard time obtaining the medical care they need to get well (Johnson 2011). A new study has found that clinicians who treat this population face significant challenges in providing patients care that is local, timely, and affordable (Johnson 2022).

Between September 23 and December 1, 2021, LymeDisease.org conducted a survey of U.S. clinicians who treat PLD/CLD patients. One hundred and fifty-five clinicians from 30 states responded to the survey and 45 provided comments in the open text survey item. The results of this survey were published this week: Access to Care in Lyme Disease: Clinician Barriers to Providing Care. The primary goal of this survey was to identify the difficulties that clinicians face when caring for patients with PLD/CLD.

We are pleased to present the Clinician Barriers to Providing Care Chartbook summarizing key points from the published study.

2022 MyLymeData Chartbook

Download Your full color

2022 MyLymeData Chart Book

Clinician Barriers to Providing Care: Why Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

Download Now

The CDC estimates that 476,000 cases of Lyme disease occur annually (Kugeler 2021). Even when diagnosed and treated early, up to 44% of patients fail treatment, with only 56% considered to have returned to health (Aucott 2022). In later disease, treatment failure rates are higher. Lyme disease patients who remain ill after antibiotic treatment are regarded as having persistent or chronic Lyme disease. These patients may have been diagnosed early or late.

Chronic Lyme disease definition

Clinicians who treat PLD/CLD

Clinicians treating patients with PLD/CLD have developed significant clinical expertise. Most clinicians (55%) are  medical doctors (MD) or doctors of osteopathy (DO); the remainder are naturopaths with prescription privileges (15%), nurse practitioners (12%) or physician assistants (6%).

Over half of the clinicians (56%) have treated more than 500 patients and 38% have treated more than 1000 patients. Most (57%) dedicate more than half of their practice treating Lyme disease. Almost all (98%) have taken continued medical education for Lyme disease treatment. Eighty-nine percent belong to the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) and most belong to other medical societies as well.

How many patients have you treated with Lyme disease?

Why Clinicians Who Treat Chronic Lyme Disease Find it Difficult to Provide Care

Despite their considerable expertise, clinicians report that providing care to PLD/CLD patients is challenging. In particular, the complexity of the care provided and the time it takes to provide that care make it difficult for clinicians to provide care using the traditional insurance-based healthcare model. This increases the cost of care provided to patients and makes it difficult for patients to pay for the care that can be given.

Why treating Lyme disease is hard

The complexity of care needed requires longer clinician visits than treatment for other conditions. For example, 25% of clinicians said their first consultations took more than two hours, and 44% said their follow-up visits took between one and two hours.

Clinicians reported that the length of healthcare visits for PLD/CLD coupled with the additional insurance administrative burdens and reimbursement payment issues make it hard for care to be given under a traditional insurance-based model, which typically relies on clinicians seeing a high volume of patients for short office visits. As one clinician explained:

“The most difficult problem is the cost of providing this amount of complex care on a cash basis. To really review hundreds of records, spend time with the patient and do a proper workup, takes hours. I’d like to see more support for patients and clinicians who choose to help this set of patients.”

As a result of these challenges, most PLD/CLD providers do not accept insurance:

  • 74% do not participate in insurance networks
  • 76% do not directly bill insurers
  • 77% do not participate in Medicare, Medicaid, or other government supported plans

Another reason the insurance model of providing care does not work for PLD/CLD is that the risk of legal or regulatory action by medical boards, insurance companies, and other organizations is heightened for clinicians who accept insurance. Three-quarters of the clinicians who answered the survey say that they have been professionally stigmatized. More than a third (39%) report that they have been threatened with actions by medical boards, insurance companies, or hospital quality improvement committees.

One clinician commented:

“While my patients are generally very supportive, some of my colleagues have stopped speaking to me and I worry about the medico-legal repercussions of what I do.”

39 percent reported to medical board

Another said:

“I used to practice in a state where physicians who treat complex patients, including people with chronic Lyme, were specifically targeted by health insurance companies for medical board complaints and other attacks ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HELPED PATIENTS OTHER DOCTORS GAVE UP ON. Eventually I elected to move to [a state] where there is less interruption of care and more protection of vulnerable patients from predatory insurance entities.”

One way clinicians can avoid targeting by insurance companies and other groups is by opting out of insurance networks, Medicare, and Medicaid. Clinicians who are stigmatized or don’t participate in insurance networks have fewer chances to share office space and overhead costs. This increases the cost of providing care. Treating PLD/CLD also imposed additional insurance related burdens that increase the cost of providing care exist even for clinicians who do not participate in insurance networks. These include prior authorization of medications (77%), insurance denials (71%), and other insurance-related problems (49%).

When clinicians do not participate in insurance networks, the economic burden of shouldering the cost of care is shifted to patients. This makes care more expensive for patients who have to pay for care out-of-pocket. It doesn’t come as a surprise then that 75% of clinicians say that a central problem in their practice is the patients’ inability to pay out of pocket costs. One clinician commented:

“I knew that at some point I would be forced to stop taking insurance and move forward on a cash pay only basis. Looking at the numbers, taking commercial insurance for these patients just doesn’t make any sense. I believe that the main issue that causes many of these patients to be without access to care is the amount they need to spend on their practitioners plus the out of pocket costs for out of network testing, labs, and treatment. For most of these patients that is anywhere from $10 to $20K per year. It is a huge burden.”

Essentially, the insurance model of providing healthcare is broken for patients with PLD/CLD. Not only does this increase the costs of providing care for providers and shift the cost burden to patients, it also means that patients can’t get care from their regular provider, must obtain care from places that don’t take their insurance, and need to navigate a complex healthcare maze to even find the care they need. Patient surveys published previously also identify the high cost of out-of-pocket care (Johnson 2011).

In addition, previous surveys have found that patients incur substantial diagnostic delays, misdiagnosis, see many clinicians before being diagnosed, and travel significant distances to receive care (Johnson 2011, 2014, 2020). To obtain care, 49% of patients report traveling more than 50 miles; 31% report traveling 100 miles or more for care (Johnson 2011). Because obtaining care can be expensive, inconvenient, and interfere with work responsibilities, many patients may choose not to get care at all (Johnson 2022).

Clinicians here reported that patients with PLD/CLD often had to wait a long time for their first appointments, and that many of their patients traveled from outside their state of practice to obtain care. These factors point to a supply/demand crisis in the treatment of PLD/CLD. There are simply not enough clinicians to supply the amount of care required by patients to get well. The challenges identified by clinicians here—a broken insurance model of care, professional stigma, and heightened liability exposure—also discourage other clinicians from providing care to people with PLD/CLD.

Not enough Lyme disease clinicians

Why Early Diagnosis and Avoiding Misdiagnosis is Important

To address the supply/demand crises, it is important to reduce the number of patients who develop PLD/CLD. This requires early diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians identified inadequate physician education about tick borne diseases, false negative lab tests, and misdiagnosis as key causes of delayed diagnosis.

Delayed Lyme disease diagnosis

Nearly three quarters of patients report having initially been misdiagnosed. Misdiagnosis is often caused by the lack of education of other clinicians about tick-borne diseases (Johnson 2011, 2018). In a case series of people who might have had early Lyme disease but didn’t have a rash, 54% of Lyme disease patients who didn’t have a rash were given the wrong diagnosis (Aucott 2009). Because of this, misdiagnosis should be seen as a major risk factor for PLD/CLD.

Conclusion

The challenges identified here related to insurance and professional stigma make it hard to keep and hire clinicians who can care for the rapidly growing number of people with PLD/CLD, which is currently estimated to be slightly less than 2 million cases (Delong 2019). They also make care more costly for patients. Diagnostic delays and misdiagnosis increase the number of patients who develop PLD/CLD, exacerbating the supply/demand problem.

As Lyme disease cases rise, the demand for PLD/CLD providers will rise. The limited number of educated practitioners and the expanding number of PLD/CLD patients have created a substantial supply and demand imbalance that must be addressed.

Resolving the supply/demand imbalance is vital for PLD/CLD patients to become healthy. To do this we must:

  • improve clinician education to prevent diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis
  • retain and recruit more clinicians to address the supply demand crises by reducing professional stigma and recognizing that divergent treatment approaches exist in PLD/CLD
  • develop insurance reimbursement models that take into account the complexity of care and the time it takes to provide care.

Failing to address these issues will leave patients unable to access or afford the care that they need.

If you are a patient who is not enrolled in MyLymeData,  please enroll today. If you are a researcher who wants to collaborate with us, please contact me directly.

The MyLymeData Viz Blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org. You can contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, follow her @lymepolicywonk. 

MyLymeData Lyme Disease Research
About MyLymeData Lyme Disease Research

MyLymeData is one of the largest patient-driven registries in the nation, with over 17,000 patients enrolled. It was created by patients, is run by patients and will address the issues that Lyme disease patients care about. MyLymeData Viz provides the community with results from MyLymeData. If you are enrolled in MyLymeData, we thank you for providing the data that will accelerate the pace of research in Lyme disease. If you are not enrolled, please enroll today.

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research

‘Gearing Up To Fight Biological Weapons?’ White House Launches $88 Billion National Biodefense Strategy. World Health Summit – More Global Censorship

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/biological-weapons-biden-biodefense-strategy/

‘Gearing up To Fight Biological Weapons?’ White House Launches $88 Billion National Biodefense Strategy

October 19, 2022
The Defender

by Michael Nevradakis, Ph.D.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website.
Biohazard symbol

The Biden administration on Tuesday announced a new $88 billion national biodefense strategy that outlines the government’s plans for how to respond to future pandemics, public health emergencies and biological threats.

The launch of the “National Biodefense Strategy and Implementation Plan for Countering Biological Threats, Enhancing Pandemic Preparedness, and Achieving Global Health Security” included the signing of National Security Memorandum-15 (NSM-15).

Key elements of the new strategy include the rapid production and distribution of vaccines and diagnostic tests, and enhancing global health security.

The strategy also includes a new framework for the federal government’s role during a future crisis, which places the White House at the center of any such response, coordinating the actions of multiple federal agencies.

The White House said the new strategy adopts lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In an interview with The Defender, University of Illinois international law professor Francis Boyle, J.D., Ph.D., a bioweapons expert who drafted the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, said:

“It appears that the enormous amount of money here, $88 billion over five years, when you add it on to well over, I would say, maybe $130 billion [in biodefense spending] since Sept. 11, 2001, means that they are gearing up to fight biological weapons warfare around the world.”

Boyle told The Defender that between October 2001 and October 2015, the federal government spent $100 billion “on biological warfare purposes.”

“To put that into perspective,” he said, “in constant dollars, the Manhattan Project to develop the atom bomb was $40 billion.”

Plan calls for development, distribution of new vaccines within 130 days

Biden’s new biodefense strategy includes the rapid development and deployment of new vaccines and diagnostics that it foresees in response to any future “biological threats.”

According to the White House’s plan, these “biological threats” may be “naturally occurring, accidental [or] deliberate,” “with the potential to significantly impact humans, animals (domestic and wildlife), plants, and the environment, and to negatively affect health, the economy, society, and security.”

According to STAT, the plan’s targets include:

  • Being able to test for new pathogens within 12 hours.
  • Making rapid tests available to the public within 90 days.
  • Repurposing existing drugs within 90 days.
  • Developing vaccines within 100 days.
  • Manufacturing enough of the new vaccine for the entire U.S. population within 130 days and “for the high-risk global population” within 200 days.
  • Developing new treatments within 180 days.

In justifying the new strategy, an unnamed senior Biden administration official quoted by The Hill said:

“We … know that the risk of another pandemic as bad or worse than COVID is a real threat. The new National Biodefense Strategy therefore outlines a bold vision … towards a world free of pandemics and catastrophic biological incidents.”

According to Defense One, other goals contained within the plan include “detecting the spread of pathogens before patients even begin to show symptoms like fever” and “scaling up the number of diagnostic test kits by tens of thousands within a week.”

A further element of the plan is “restoring community, the economy and the environment after a pandemic or biological incident,” The Hill reported.

The Biden administration’s plan also includes provisions for preparedness against the “accidental release of biological agents, and threats posed by terrorist groups or adversaries seeking to use biological weapons.”

Noting that COVID-19 “has highlighted that the United States and the world are vulnerable to biological threats, whether naturally occurring, accidental, or deliberate,” the plan states:

“It is a vital interest of the United States to prepare for, prevent, detect, respond to, and recover from biological threats at home and abroad.

“Therefore, countering biological threats, advancing pandemic preparedness, and achieving global health security are top national and international security priorities for the United States.

“Moving forward, the United States must fundamentally transform its capabilities to protect our Nation from biological threats and advance pandemic preparedness and health security more broadly for the world.”

According to STAT, an unnamed senior Biden administration official said Tuesday, “One of the important things that COVID has taught us is that we need to be able to move much faster to counter pandemic threats, and we also need to be prepared for completely unknown threats.”

The same official said the plan includes “moonshot” targets that are not scientifically feasible presently, but potentially could be within a decade.

According to the official, these new developments can target the 26 families of viruses that infect humans, “many of which we are far less prepared for than coronaviruses.”

Will Congress fund it?

Some questioned the plan’s price tag and the willingness of Congress to approve its funding.

One of the elements of the new strategy is its connection to a March 2022 request to Congress for $88 billion in funding over five years for “pandemic preparedness and biodefense,” a request that has thus far “stalled.”

These monies are intended, in part, “to fund new research to predict outbreaks before they become pandemics,” and “accelerate rapid testing to get ahead of where viruses are moving,” Defense One said.

Some of this money will come from the baseline funding of the federal agencies involved in this strategy, but it’s unclear whether Congress has “much of an appetite for additional public health spending,” according to STAT, which noted that “Republicans in Congress have balked at recent requests for funding the ongoing monkeypox and COVID-19 responses.”

According to the White House, the new strategy “builds on USAID’s [U.S. Agency for International Development] announcement earlier this year committing $150 million to the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations to accelerate the development of life-saving vaccines and countermeasures against biological threats.”

The White House also included the $1.4 billion in “seed funding” it provided earlier this year to the “groundbreaking new Financial Intermediary Fund for Pandemic Prevention, Preparedness and Response at the World Bank.”

Boyle described the $88 billion in projected funding over the next five years as “a dramatic escalation” with “no justification from legitimate scientific reasons.”

He noted that since 2015, the federal government has “allocated anywhere from $5 to $6 billion per year on biological warfare purposes, which, being conservative, would mean a sum total from Sept. 11, 2001, until now, of $135-$140 billion.”

In his view, this money is being allocated “into further expanding the U.S. biological warfare industry … for the purpose of waging biological warfare,” and instead “should have been spent on the public health of the American people.”

‘You find Tony Fauci behind all of it’

Part of the price tag for the new biodefense strategy appears to be directed toward “recruiting, training and sustaining a robust, permanent cadre of health workers in all 50 states,” in the words of a senior Biden administration official quoted by Reuters.

Referring to it as a “public health army,” STAT reported that this “cadre of health workers” will include “laboratory technicians, veterinarians, and community health workers — to not only better detect emerging diseases but respond to them.”

In turn, Defense One reported that the strategy “aims to boost the number of local healthcare workers” and “traditional frontline healthcare workers,” but also, many new positions “related to research and data collection,” including “expanding the CDC’s epidemiology field officer program” and “bringing more epidemiologists to every state.”

The Biden administration also said it is “committed to helping at least 50 countries strengthen their own local capacities,” “strengthening public health workforces both in the United States and globally” and “establishing international mechanisms to bolster laboratory safety,” according to STAT.

For some, “international mechanisms” may bring to mind the recent and ongoing efforts by the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish a renewed “global pandemic treaty” — efforts in which the United States under the Biden administration has played a leading role.

As previously reported by The Defender, the Biden administration expressed broad support for a “pandemic treaty” and previously headed negotiations on this issue.

In his interview with The Defender, Boyle also drew connections between the Biden administration’s new strategy, and efforts to develop the “pandemic treaty.”

Referring to the Biden administration’s recently signed executive order on “advancing biotechnology and biomanufacturing,” Boyle remarked that it makes mention of “dual-use research of concern, and research involving potentially pandemic and other high-consequence pathogens.”

For Boyle, “dual-use research” refers to the development of both “offensive and defensive biological weapons of warfare,” noting that “when it comes to biological warfare, defense means offense.”

“If they are saying they are doing all this for defensive purposes, it’s because they are also planning offensive use of biological warfare weapons, with the defense to defend themselves in the event that adversaries respond in kind,” Boyle added.

This then connects to the “pandemic treaty,” according to Boyle, noting that Dr. Anthony Fauci has close ties to the WHO’s executive committee:

“If you recall, Trump pulled us out of the WHO. The first act Biden did was to put us back into the WHO … and he appointed Tony Fauci as the U.S. government’s representative on the WHO executive committee.

“So the same guy supporting this ‘dual research of concern’ … is also implementing, supervising this new WHO treaty.”

Biden’s strategy also “calls for international mechanisms that can help strengthen lab safety and biosecurity practices around the world,” especially in light of “questions about the risks and benefits of research into potentially dangerous viruses,” including the COVID-19 Wuhan lab-leak theory.

This may indicate that Biden is seeking to expand gain-of-function research globally. As recently reported by The Defender, facilities conducting such research — including a facility where a purportedly “more lethal” strain of the COVID-19 Omicron variant was developed — are currently being expanded in the U.S.

Gain of function refers to the “manipulation of pathogens to make them more dangerous,” in the hope of “getting ahead of a future outbreak.”

As part of the new strategy, a “policy coordination structure for biodefense among government agencies with oversight by the White House” was signed, Reuters reported.

According to The Hill, this memorandum “outlines the coordination structure for biodefense across federal agencies, directs agencies to prioritize biodefense, directs the intelligence community to track evolving threat landscapes and ensures the government is continuously reviewing and adjusting priorities.”

Boyle, an outspoken critic of gain-of-function research, said it appears such research will be an integral part of the Biden administration’s new biodefense strategy. He told The Defender:

“It’s clear in the language that they are going full steam ahead on abusing DNA, genetic engineering, gain-of-function, synthetic biology, gene splicing, CRISPR-Cas9, to develop biological warfare weapons.”

He said that the proposed WHO pandemic treaty includes language on “measures to provide oversight and report on laboratories that do work to genetically alter organisms in order to increase pathogenicity and transmissibility.”

For Boyle, “this means gain-of-function work, using and abusing DNA engineering, synthetic biology, CRISPR-Cas9. That’s in the WHO treaty.”

“It all ties up,” Boyle added. “The executive order, the biodefense strategy, the WHO treaty. You find Tony Fauci behind all of it.”

Boyle added:

“When you add all this up together, it seems to me they’re gearing up to prepare to wage offensive biological warfare and preparing for the defense, for other states to respond with biological warfare weapons.”

Plan calls for coordination across federal agencies under White House control

The administration’s new biodefense strategy will utilize more than 20 federal agencies, while “oversight for the strategy will be at the White House, under the national security advisor.”

According to a  senior Biden administration official, the new strategy “directs the U.S. intelligence community to monitor for threats and ensure the United States ‘continuously adapts to this evolving threat landscape’ by holding annual exercises,” to “prevent epidemics and biological incidents before they happen,” Reuters reported.

This may bring to mind exercises and simulations that took place just prior to the COVID-19, monkeypox and anthrax outbreaks, which appeared to predict, with remarkable similarity, what was to follow.

According to Biden’s new strategy, the heads of the relevant federal agencies “shall implement the Biodefense Strategy, as well as related strategies such as the U.S. Global Health Security Strategy, and include biodefense-related activities … within their strategic planning and budgetary processes.”

Federal agencies also will be expected to coordinate with each other and with non-federal agencies on matters pertaining to “the biodefense enterprise.”

Is new strategy a ‘moonshot,’ or ‘pie-in-the-sky’?

In addition to questions about funding, some also questioned the feasibility of the new plan.

Defense One wrote that meeting some of the “moonshot” goals of the strategy “will require scaling up data-collection efforts at research facilities around the globe,” in addition to significantly ratcheting up a host of other research-related efforts, noting that the administration “did not specify exactly what technologies they will invest in.”

According to Defense One, “new approaches to RNA research” to “ease pandemics” may need to be developed, in addition to “new forms of plant-based vaccines” that could “allow for the scaling up of vaccine production by orders of magnitude.”

An unnamed senior Biden administration official quoted by Defense One acknowledged that the “moonshots” foreseen by the plan “are not possible today, but these capabilities can be achieved and are within our reach with the right resources over the next five to 10 years.”

Hiring more health workers may also prove challenging for the Biden administration due to a shortage of nurse practitioners that is expected to grow by 2025, along with looming “shortages of other healthcare workers.”

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

________________

Meanwhile, even pro-vaccine, mainstream doctors are calling for COVID advisors to be deposed:

http://

Joe Biden Needs to FIRE all his COVID advisors

By Dr. Vinay Prasad

Oct. 2022

Speaking of “globalism” this explains a lot:

http://  Approx. 10 Min

Oct. 25, 2022

2022 World Health Summit

Only One Hedges on Medical Censorship

The rest truly believe the public is stupid

Rebel News’ Drea Humphrey discusses her reporting from this year’s World Health Summit in Berlin, Germany.  A number believe the public needs to have information censored.

Only one executive spoke up for healthy skepticism and “informed consent.”

Predictably the Rebel News journalists were asked to leave.

Visit http://RebelWHO.com to support our exclusive coverage of the 2022 World Health Summit.

Rebel News: Telling the other side of the story. https://www.RebelNews.com

SUMMARY:

  • All the topics align with the overarching theme – globalism
  • A Global Health Communications panel with top representatives from FB, Google, WHO, TikTok, Science Magazine, and “Women in Global Health” discussed Big Tech censorship – which the majority agree with
    • These morons believe they need to sift through information and decide what is truth because the public is stupid
    • WHO Director of Communications calls the “purveyors of lies,” “the bad guys,” and that they have more “seductive messages” than them – the supposed purveyors of truth.  She feels they need to “flood in accurate information to drown out the “vast tsunami of these compelling lies.”
    • The TikTok creator believes that using “prebunked videos” in ad space on YouTube served to inoculate audiences against “misinformation.” She believes platforms should be using people like her to make these “prebunked” videos and should be “sacrificing ad space” so “we can help get in there.” Remember YouTube has purged thousands of channels  to silence dissent.
    • The guy from Meta admits that this type of work is “consistent with partnerships we’ve had already with a lot of health organizations” proving the evil collusion many have suspected.
    • The executive director of the WHO health emergencies program, who was a very outspoken advocate of restrictions during lockdowns was careful to state they should not weaponize communications.  He advocated for skepticism of all information.  He appeared to be the only one in the room capable of logical thought or is simply controlled opposition.

Lastly, this 2 min. video explains digital currency and how all the dots connect:  https://mobile.twitter.com/roller2426/status/1558313162671534081

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Dr. Christian Perronne Exonerated

https://www.trialsitenews.com/a/exonerated-in-france-one-persecuted-doctor-triumphs-over-covid-repression-

Exonerated! In France, One Persecuted Doctor Triumphs Over Covid Repression

Mary Beth Pfeiffer
Oct. 23, 2022

Dr. Christian Perronne in Paris on October 10 at an interview for RESCUE and TrialSite News. (Mary Beth Pfeiffer)

PARIS—A prominent French physician has won a stunning victory against charges that he denigrated official covid policies, with the French Order of Physicians holding that he was in fact obliged to speak out.

In its ruling, the French governing body for doctors found that Christian Perronne, 67, acted in the best interest of citizens and his profession in critiquing covid treatments and vaccines on social media, in national television interviews, and in a best-selling book.

“Dr. Perronne, an internationally recognized expert in the field of infectious diseases, was best placed to understand public health issues,” the translated decision stated. “If he spoke in the press about the action of the government and the pharmaceutical industry—as he was legitimate to do and even had the obligation to do so in this area which fell within his competence—he confined himself to publicly, but without invective, a discordant voice on a subject of general interest.”

In March 2020, as covid was exploding, Perronne emailed me a hugely encouraging study by Dr. Didier Raoult on successful treatment of covid with an old antimalarial drug, hydroxychloroquine. We both thought covid could quickly be tamed. But when President Trump “fast-tracked” the drug a day after my article on Forbes.com, the safe, generic treatment began a slow and tragic slide toward mainstream ridicule and rejection.

Perronne went on to sharply criticize the French government’s covid approach, including in a highly successful book entitled Is there a mistake THEY didn’t make?: COVID-19: the sacred union of incompetence and arrogance. The book, and statements Perronne made in a whirlwind of media interviews, soon got him into trouble with French medical authorities, which he believes was at the behest of French President Emmanuel Macron.

“At the beginning I understood things were going in the wrong way,” Perronne told me. Having served for a decade as overseer, variously, of the nation’s communicable disease, health security, and vaccine review commissions, “I think I knew how to manage such problems.”

Among Perronne’s other qualifications, he was vice president of the European Technical Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization for six years, which provides independent review and expertise on vaccines for the World Health Organization.  (See link for article)

__________________

**Comment**

You may recognize this doctor as I’ve posted about him before as he is an outspoken critic of how Lyme/MSIDS is being handled:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/03/15/french-government-announces-support-for-doctor-discretion-in-treating-lyme-msids/

He is also wildly critical of how COVID has been handled calling it “completely stupid and unethical”:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2021/08/19/covid-policy-is-completely-stupid-unethical-states-frances-vaccine-policy-chief-who-was-recently-fired-for-stating-this/

He also believes COVID “vaccinations” are causing harm.

“I’m very worried because we know that some people died a few days or a few weeks after the injection,” he said, adding that he personally knows of three deaths of young people, 17 to 20 years old. Add to that heart problems, strokes, excess non-covid deaths, possible sterility, and cancer.

“I have no scientific proof but what I can see from the U.S., different countries, and France, many oncologists are saying we never saw such a huge amount of cancer cases,” he told me. “Unfortunately, I don’t think all the statistics are reliable today, but it’s a signal.”

He has written a followup book titled Decidedly, THEY still haven’t understood anything!

Like so many other Lyme literate doctors Perronne was attacked simply for thinking for himself.  The establishment has an accepted narrative and woe to anyone who does not blindly parrot that narrative.  My own doctor was similarly attacked and had to spend nearly $50K to defend his medical practice which is why most LLMDs do not accept insurance as its often the insurance companies that turn these doctors in. Important quote:

“When a doctor runs out of money, his lawyers ask him to settle and stipulate and admit to certain things (he’s) done ‘wrong.’ The burden of proof is on the doctor, even when there are no complaints from patients.” ~ Dr. Robert Waters

Patients are doing well and are completely happy with their care but insurance companies hide cowardly behind the skirts of corrupt public health authorities whom are in bed with Big Pharma.

And the band plays on.

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

This is Lyme: Our Stories

http://

This is Lyme: Our Stories

Lyme disease is devastating when it reaches the chronic form (usually due to missed diagnosis), which is largely ignored by medical professionals across the globe. The intent of this video is to share our stories and raise awareness. No one is immune–this could happen to you.

For more:

Category:

Activism, Lyme

Lyme Advocate Asks TBDWG “Where We Are Today After a 6 Year Pacifier?” Answer: No Where

https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u

Status of Verbal Public Comment Request for Oct 25. Tick-borne Disease Working Group Meeting

Carl Tuttle

Hudson, NH, United States

Oct 21, 2022 — 

I received word from the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group that they received more requests than can be accommodated so I sent the following reply…

By the way.. if anyone is questioning my comment below directed at Dennis Dixon you may want to read the following link describing his shenanigans:

TOUCHED BY LYME: Contentious TBDWG vote delivers a win for patients
https://www.lymedisease.org/tbdwg-patient-viewpoint-prevails/

———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “tickbornedisease@hhs.gov” <tickbornedisease@hhs.gov>
Cc: (All Members of the TBDWG)
Date: 10/20/2022 10:32 AM
Subject: Status of Verbal Public Comment Request for Oct 25. Tick-borne Disease Working Group Meeting

On 10/19/2022 4:14 PM Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (OS/OASH) <tickbornedisease@hhs.gov> wrote:  “We appreciate your input over the last 6 years of the TBDWG.”

To all Members of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group,

And where are we today after this SIX YEAR pacifier???????? 

“Chronic Lyme is a religious belief” -Dr. David Walker, Co-Chair of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group.
https://www.lymedisease.org/tuttle-comment-tbdwg-nov17/

I recommend reviewing that link above which includes a list of references that the CDC refuses to acknowledge along with the 363 references of chronic Lyme after antibiotic treatment:

Persistent Lyme infection: 363 Peer-Reviewed Studies
https://www.dropbox.com/s/wypdcr45cfmq16d/Persistence3.docx?dl=0

And why would the CDC refuse to recognize/study chronic Lyme disease in great detail you might ask? Because a chronic relapsing seronegative disease does not fit the business model of vaccine development, patent royalties and pharmaceutical profits. (Follow the money) Chronic Lyme does not fit any vaccine model.

Everyone satisfied with how the CDC (mis)handled SARS-CoV-2? “Sicken in place until we have a vaccine while suppressing early treatment”

Lyme was the precursor to Covid mismanagement all for the sake of a vaccine.

I believe I speak for the majority of chronic Lyme patients all across America who have been left to fend for themselves with a disease that is destroying lives, ending careers while leaving its victim in financial ruin. [1]

Message to Dr. Dennis Dixon (Regular Government Employee): You can take that Pfizer OspA vaccine (fast tracked by the FDA) [2] and

“stick it where the sun don’t shine”

Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH

Mark Twain once said, “It is easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.”

References

1 Petition Comments sent to Kristen Honey Aug 2018
https://www.dropbox.com/s/bgd87o2dps919x6/Petition%20Comments%20to%20Kristen%20Honey%20Aug%202018.csv?dl=0

2 Valneva Receives FDA Fast Track Designation for its Lyme Disease Vaccine Candidate VLA15
https://valneva.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2017_07_24_VLA_Lyme_FDA_Fast_track_PR_EN.pdf

——— Original Message ———-
From: Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (OS/OASH)
To: Tick-Borne Disease Working Group (OS/OASH)
Date: 10/19/2022 4:14 PM
Subject: Status of Verbal Public Comment Request for Oct 25. Tick-borne Disease Working Group Meeting

Good Afternoon,

Thank you for requesting to provide verbal comments during the upcoming October 25th, 2022 TBDWG meeting. We received more requests than can be accommodated, therefore – as stated on our website – speakers were randomly selected.  We are in the process of confirming that the selected speakers are still available and will reach out to you if any spots are not confirmed.

As you may be aware, the TBDWG is mandated to sunset in December, so we are unsure about any future meetings of the TBDWG and associated verbal public comments.  We appreciate your input over the last 6 years of the TBDWG.

Sincerely,

Tick-Borne Disease Working Group Staff

For more:

Category:

Activism, Lyme