On May 19, 2025, the World Health Organization (WHO) took a historic but deeply concerning step: Member States, through Committee A of the World Health Assembly, officially approved the WHO Pandemic Agreement—a sweeping global treaty that is now expected to be formally adopted in plenary session on Tuesday, May 20.
This agreement, hailed by WHO leadership as a landmark tool for “equity,” “solidarity,” and “science-based” pandemic responses, contains alarming provisions that threaten national sovereignty, institutionalize emergency countermeasures, and entrench WHO as the central coordinating authority in future health crises.
Why It Matters That the United States Is Withdrawing from the WHO
On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order initiating the U.S. withdrawal from the WHO, citing its COVID-19 failures, lack of reforms, and disproportionate U.S. funding. The move paused all future U.S. funding, ended negotiations on the Pandemic Agreement, and recalled U.S. personnel. The withdrawal takes full effect on January 22, 2026. (See link for article)
_______________
**Comment**
According to Hulscher, the agreement is bad because:
National governments will be pressured to align their laws with global dictates
Experimental products would be rapidly deployed without sufficient safety data
Legitimate scientific dissent could be labeled as misinformation
Entire populations could be coerced into compliance with no guaranteed recourse for harm
One day after member states reached this deal, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. made a surprise video appearance in full support of U.S. withdrawal from the WHO.
“Like many legacy institutions, the WHO has become mired in bureaucratic bloat,entrenched paradigms, conflicts of interest and international power politics. … The WHO often acts like it has forgotten that its members must remain accountable to their own citizens and not to transnational or corporate interests.” ~ Robert F. Kennedy Jr. HHS Secretary
Kennedy said the U.S. is open to international cooperation on public health, but not under the umbrella of the WHO. He also said the U.S. is pivoting to make the healthcare system more responsive to the chronic disease epidemic.
Reuters reported that 124 countries voted for the agreement. No countries voted against while eleven countries, including Israel, Italy, Poland, Russia, Iran and Slovakia, abstained.
China, Qatar, Switzerland and others pledged over $170 million for the World Health Organization at its assembly on Tuesday, the agency said, and countries also accepted higher fees to help offset the expected loss of the U.S., the top donor.
“In a challenging climate for global health, these funds will help us to preserve and extend our life-saving work,” Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General, said in a statement on new donations covering 2025-2028.
If COVID was the dress-rehearsal, I’d hate to see the actual performance of the WHO in any future ‘pandemic.’
The IDSA’s Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome was not good enough! (Part 2)
Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH, United States
May 21, 2025
Please see the following response to my inquiry previously sent to Dr. Marcia McNutt regarding the National Academies Report “Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses”
———- Original Message ———-
From: “Liao, Julie” <JLiao@nas.edu>
To: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
Date: 05/19/2025 9:47 AM EDT
Subject: Re: Inquiry on National Academies report, Charting a Path Toward New Treatments for Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses
Good morning,
I am a senior program officer at the National Academies and co-director of the study that produced the report, Charting a Path Toward New Treatments for Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses. Dr. McNutt shared your message with me, and I am responding on her behalf as a lead staff for the project.
First of all, thank you for your interest in this report and sharing these concerns. The National Academies committee that authored this report is aware of the painful history of disbelief and mistrust in the early days of recognizing and studying persistent symptoms associated with Lyme disease. It is their hope that this report takes the first step toward moving past this history to catalyze actions that prioritize discovery and development of new, effective, safe treatments for people living with these symptoms. To this end, the report explicitly recognizes that Lyme infection-associated chronic illnesses are real, and that these illnesses are debilitating to the health and well-being of many individuals.
Regarding the concern on funding development and use of new antimicrobials, the report recognizes that there may be a multitude of pathogenic mechanisms and calls for exploration of new treatments that can address the different potential pathways leading to these chronic symptoms. This includes pathogen persistence, as well as autoimmunity or other immune dysregulation as a result of Lyme disease.
It is the committee’s hope that new evidence will continue to emerge and advance our collective knowledge and ability to mitigate and one day cure these infection-associated chronic illnesses, including those associated with Lyme disease.
Warm regards,
Julie
Julie Liao, PhD (she/her)
Co-Director
Forum on Microbial Threats
Study on Evidence Base for Lyme-IACI Treatment
Keck 854 | (202) 334-2191
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
nationalacademies.org/HMD
Carl Tuttle’s reply:
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “Liao, Julie” <JLiao@nas.edu>
Cc: “mmcnutt@nas.edu” <mmcnutt@nas.edu>, “vdzau@nas.edu” <vdzau@nas.edu>, “wkearney@nas.edu” <wkearney@nas.edu>, “dmay@nas.edu” <dmay@nas.edu>, “amacdonald@nas.edu” <amacdonald@nas.edu>
Date: 05/20/2025 10:02 AM EDT
Subject: Re: Inquiry on National Academies report, Charting a Path Toward New Treatments for Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses
The optimal treatment for Lyme disease has yet to be determined because the focus early on went directly into developing a vaccine. Here are some examples of how other difficult infections have been handled:
It was once believed that rifampin was curative in treating Brucellosis but when symptoms returned doxycycline was added to the mix and when that too failed a third antibiotic, streptomycin was added to the current treatment regimen. [1] [2]
In 1985 the worldwide incidence of leprosy was 6,000,000. Last year, it was 800,000. The only thing that changed was the addition of rifampin to dapsone in the treatment of the disease. Rifampin was added to dapsone because the M leprae were becoming resistant and it was a new antibiotic at that time.
Treatments for multidrug-resistant tuberculosis have been introduced (bedaquiline and delamanid) with more in the pipeline. [3]
A new treatment for recurrent Clostridium difficile was recently studied (bezlotoxumab) for reducing the risk of a repeat infection. [4]
In contrast, oral amoxicillin or doxycycline remains the treatment of choice for treating Lyme disease for over thirty years regardless if debilitating symptoms return. In 1977 Dr. Allen Steere knew that these antibiotics were not effective for all patients[5] but there has been no change in treatment or research to find more effective ways to eradicate the infection in all stages/forms of disease.
At what point in time do we recognize that we are dealing with an antibiotic resistant/tolerant superbug and focus our research on finding new antimicrobials for this life-altering/life-threatening disease as more of the population becomes severely disabled from inappropriately treated Lyme disease.
From your reply: The report recognizes that there may be a multitude of pathogenic mechanisms and calls for exploration of new treatments that can address the different potential pathways leading to these chronic symptoms. This includes pathogen persistence, as well as autoimmunity or other immune dysregulation as a result of Lyme disease.”
Those of us who have studied the mishandling of Lyme disease believe this is just lip service and the real effort will be spent on expensive treatments for the sick and disabled Lyme community still suffering from chronic Lyme; there’s more profit in providing a lifetime of drugs than on a cure and if a chronic relapsing seronegative disease were identified through the proposed “actions” it would end the current vaccine dream overnight because you cannot prove vaccine efficacy in a disease where we do not know who has or does not have the infection; having a curative approach would also give the public an excuse not to take their vaccine. (Let that sink in)
The Evidence is overwhelming that we have been dealing with an antibiotic resistant/tolerant superbug while the so-called science is (mis)used for legalized gaslighting (Follow the science) The IDSA/CDC have defined the disease (= high costs) away so when patients object; MD’s successfully hide behind their definition and guidelines.
I want to make this crystal clear:Suppressing evidence of antibiotic resistance (as well as ignoring these actions) is a crime and the National Academies has been given detailed notice of this atrocity. Questions:
1. Will the search to find new antibiotics [6] be the research priority?
2.Who will be given responsibility for these studies? (certainly not the same researchers who previously received Lyme funding from the CDC/NIH)
A response to this inquiry is requested.
Carl Tuttle
Independent Researcher
Hudson, NH
Cc: Marcia McNutt, President of the National Academy of Sciences and Chair of the National Research Council REFERENCES (PLEASE READ!)
After acute brucellosis infection, symptoms persist in a minority of patients for more than 1 year. Such patients are defined as having chronic brucellosis. Since no objective laboratory methods exist to confirm the presence of chronic disease, these patients suffer delays in both diagnosis and treatment.
2. Administration of a triple versus a standard double antimicrobial regimen for human brucellosis more efficiently eliminates bacterial DNA load. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25246401
The doxycycline-streptomycin-rifampin regimen eliminates Brucella DNA more efficiently than doxycycline-streptomycin, which may result in superior long-term clearance of Brucella.
5. Lyme arthritis: an epidemic of oligoarticular arthritis in children and adults in three connecticut communities. (1977)
Steere AC, Malawista SE, Snydman DR, Shope RE, Andiman WA, Ross MR, Steele FM.
Excerpt:
“The best treatment for this illness is not clear. Some physicians have reported that penicillin or tetracycline results in disappearance of the skin lesion (41,42), but others find antibiotics ineffective. Four of the patients with expanding skin lesions received penicillin but still developed arthritis.”
6. Lyme Disease: Call for a “Manhattan Project” to Combat the Epidemic
Raphael B. Stricker, Lorraine Johnson
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “Liao, Julie” <JLiao@nas.edu>
Cc: “mmcnutt@nas.edu” <mmcnutt@nas.edu>, “vdzau@nas.edu” <vdzau@nas.edu>, “wkearney@nas.edu” <wkearney@nas.edu>, “dmay@nas.edu” <dmay@nas.edu>, “amacdonald@nas.edu” <amacdonald@nas.edu>
Date: 05/21/2025 8:42 AM EDT
Subject: Re: Inquiry on National Academies report, Charting a Path Toward New Treatments for Lyme Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses
Dr. Liao,
It’s no surprise that the Chair of your committee that published the Consensus Study Report is a vaccinologist. This validates everything I have been reporting about the rush to create a vaccine for Lyme which led to the deliberate mishandling of the disease.
It is obvious that the priority here is still the Lyme vaccine and finding a cure for chronic Lyme is just lip service.
THE GENEVA FOUNDATION
CHAIR OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS KENT KESTER, MD, COL (RET.), USA
Again, here is the old 2014 interview with Willy Burgdorfer where he states research must be started over at square one because the same people have been doing the research and coming up with the same results – nothing!
A small pilot study has found evidence of human co-infections from Bartonella and Babesia odocoilei, a protozoal tick-borne infection primarily found in deer, moose and other cervids. The co-infections were detected in six of seven patients suffering from chronic, non-specific illness, who were enrolled in a Bartonella study at North Carolina State University. The work presents some of the first definitive DNA evidence of this strain of Babesia infection in humans, and could impact treatments for patients with Bartonella, Borrelia or Babesia infections.
Bartonella are a group of vector-borne bacteria transmitted primarily via arthropods like fleas, lice and potentially ticks, but also by the animals that harbor them. There are at least 45 different known Bartonella species, of which 18 have been found to infect humans. Improved methods for detecting Bartonella infection in animals and humans have led to the diagnosis of bartonelloses in patients with a host of chronic illnesses, as well as in some patients with psychiatric symptoms.
In the U.S., the main Babesia species that infect humans are B. microti, B. duncani and B. divergens-like. Transmission occurs mainly by tick bite, but there are reports of transmission by transfusion of contaminated blood, organ transplantation and transplacental transmission. In addition to asymptomatic infection, babesiosis can be associated with non-specific symptoms such as fever, chills and night sweats, or with severe, life-threatening hemolytic anemia.
Babesia and Bartonella are often suspected as co-infections with Lyme disease, caused by the bacterium Borrelia burgdorferi.
“Doctors who work with Lyme patients often suspect co-infection with Babesia most often based on serology data and symptoms,” says Edward Breitschwerdt, Melanie S. Steele Distinguished Professor of Internal Medicine at NC State’s College of Veterinary Medicine and corresponding author of a paper describing the work. “So we decided to test for potential co-infections with this subset of our Bartonella study participants.”
The seven patients in the pilot study were already enrolled in a larger study aimed at detecting Bartonella in the blood of people with chronic illness and extensive animal contact. The participants’ ages ranged from two-and-a-half to 62 years old. Four were veterinary workers, one was a student and veterinary technician, one was a veterinarian’s daughter and one was a pre-school aged child. All submitted blood and tissue samples for testing.
Using digital droplet PCR testing, which identifies pathogens by their DNA sequences, the researchers discovered that all seven participants were infected with Babesia odocoilei, and that six of the seven were co-infected with at least one, and sometimes two or more, species of Bartonella.
“We were surprised by these findings for several reasons,” Breitschwerdt says. “First, this strain of Babesia – B. odocoilei – isn’t currently considered a cause of human infection. Second, these patients reside in locations around the U.S. and in Mexico, so the distribution may be geographically widespread. Finally, we were able to identify these seven infected individuals within a one-year time period, suggesting that this may be a more prevalent infection than currently appreciated.”
The findings could have implications for how patients with symptoms of vector-borne illnesses such as Lyme, babesiosis, or bartonellosis are tested and treated.
“The main symptom associated with babesiosis is acute, severe hemolytic anemia. None of these patients reported any such illness, a factor that could limit a doctor’s decision to test for Babesia infection,” Breitschwerdt says.
“This study primarily focused on patients with chronic illnesses and suspected bartonelloses. Most often, doctors don’t look for Babesia in these patients, but we now have good evidence that people can be infected by this organism, evidence that should be pursued in larger studies. Physicians who treat Lyme disease have often suspected co-infections with these pathogens, and it looks like their suspicions are correct, at least in a subset of patients.”
“We are committed to providing the best vector borne infectious disease testing results possible,” says Ricardo Maggi, research professor at NC State and first author of the study. “The cases presented in this manuscript reflect our team’s efforts to develop better approaches and diagnostic tools that can give answers to both patients and their doctors.”
The study appears inParasites and Vectors and was supported by NC State’s Bartonella/Vector-Borne Diseases Research Fund and the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation. NC State Ph.D. student Charlotte Moore, São Paulo State University Ph.D. student Ana Cláudia Calchi, and NC State research specialist Emily Kingston also contributed to the work.
How can you get near perfect efficacy from a vaccine that doesn’t work? Thanks to Professor Jeffrey Morris, I now know the magic trick too! This one had me fooled me for years.
I like Penn and Teller. But they don’t know jack about vaccines. Check out this video they did. They should apologize and re-do the video to tell the truth. YouTube will ban it though.
Executive Summary
If you have a policy of COVID testing where it is mandatory to test the unvaccinated 2x/week but the vaccinated can totally skip testing, this can massively skew all studies based on that data.
I just found out this was the case in the Czech Republic which is the only country where we have record level data.
That explains a lot, doesn’t it? A testing policy like that can make an ineffective vaccine close to perfect.
Bottom line: the only honest way to see if the vaccine worked is to compare the whole period all-cause mortality between those who got the shots and those who did not.Then you learn the truth.
Guess what? There isn’t a single study that does this.Zero. Zip. Nada.
So I calculated it for the Czech Republic. It shows that the vaccines should be stopped. But you already knew that, didn’t you?
And if you can’t get COVID, you can’t die from COVID!
BAM! The magic trick has been revealed. The next time you want to make a vaccine super effective, there is nothing like deploying a differential testing policy like this.
Therefore, in Czechia, you get a near perfect vaccine and can write papers about it and nobody is the wiser. (See link for article)
_______________
**Comment**
These tactics need to be continually exposed for what they are: false and misleading – constituting scientific fraud. Those in public health should be reviewing these things before they roll out a drug or medical product of any kind.
Hirsch then shows a table (to access, click top link) that shows when you actually compare whole period all-cause mortality between the injected and the non-injected you discover the shots are killing people. But, reality is already showing this for those paying attention.
Here’s the two sentences from the paper that everyone should read:
A worldwide Bayesian causal Impact analysis suggests that COVID-19 gene therapy (mRNA vaccine) causesmore COVID-19 cases per million and more non-Covid deaths per million than are associated with COVID-19 [43].
An abundance of studies has shown that the mRNA vaccines are neither safe nor effective, but outright dangerous.
People have been shouting about these death shots for years. There’s plenty of published science showing the myriad of problems.
Two White Papers Call For COVID Shot Halt
The IPAK-EDU White Paper 2025-ENDEUA states that when corrected efficacy curves and suppressed risks are taken into account, the mRNA covid shots fail the EUA standard. The shots were based upon interim data from large-scale Phase III trials. The legal standard under §564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act requires that a product may be authorized for emergency use only if it is “reasonable to believe” that the product “may be effective” against a life-threatening condition, that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks, and that no adequate alternatives are available. This report demonstrates, through a rigorous retrospective analysis, that these criteria were never met.
Go here to listen to Dr. Jeyanthi Kunadhasan, an Australian anesthesiologist and perioperative physician who was terminated from her hospital position after questioning the risk-benefit profile of COVID-19 vaccines in healthy individuals. Following her dismissal, she joined a group of international medical volunteers tasked with reviewing the 500,000+ pages of internal Pfizer documents released as part of a court-ordered FOIA request. This effort was coordinated by DailyClout and Dr. Naomi Wolf. As a result of that work, Dr. Kunadhasan has become one of the foremost experts on Pfizer’s pivotal mRNA vaccine trial, focusing specifically on discrepancies in reported deaths and adverse events.
What Dr. Kunadhasan uncovers raises grave questions about data integrity, regulatory failure, fraud, and the validity of the FDA’s EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 shot.
And yet another White Paper is calling for an urgent halt on self-amplifying RNA ‘vaccine’ deployment until comprehensive safety studies are done to address contagiousness risks. The paper discusses the significant theoretical risk including contagiousness through shedding, sexual transmission, and recombination with wild-type viruses.
FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary and head of FDA’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Dr. Vinay Prasad, note that a number of other countries such as Australia and Germany only recommend the clot shots to certain populations while the U.S. has taken a ‘one size fits all’ approach because experts have argued Americans are too stupid to understand age-and risk-based recommendations.
But, even this approach ignores the elephant in the room: there are treatments for COVID which means a ‘vaccine’ isn’t even needed. Then, there’s the fact they have negative efficacy.
What more is it going to take?
Evidently, a lot more……
The Food and Drug Administration issued an approval for Novavax’s Covid-19 ‘vaccine.’This is the only non-mRNA vaccine.
The vaccine was approved for adults aged 65 and older and individuals aged 12 to 64 with at least one underlying health condition that increases their risk for severe COVID-19 outcomes. Reading the clinical trials prompts serious questions.
The trials included populations that had a single dose and populations that had two doses. The trials showed a reduction in symptomatic Covid 7 days after the second dose. But the FDA didn’t approve two doses. They only approved one.So is one dose even effective at all at preventing Covid? We don’t know, that wasn’t tested. (Is this sounding familiar yet?)
There is also a noted risk of myocarditis and heart inflammation. There was also at least one vaccine recipient with “a serious event of Guillain Barré syndrome reported 9 days following the shot. The FDA notes that Novavax has to follow up on any further cases if they observe it.
The FDA is also supposed to follow up on how the vaccine does when it is shipped to patients. They must submit a study called “Shipping Evaluation of SARS-CoV-2 rS (JN.1 Vaccine) Drug Product in Pre-Filled Syringe (PFS) Finished Good Presentation” by July of this year.
They approve vaccines not knowing how they will fare once they are shipped to doctor’s offices. They test it on us.
There is good news: there are at least 16 states with pending bills seeking to ban the clot shot mandates, establish a ‘vaccine’ bill of rights, or prohibit any immunization containing mRNA material. Some bills would require manufacturers to label foods containing mRNA, according to data compiled by Bloomberg Government.
And top FDA official just disclosed she never got the clot shot due to her concerns about biodistribution. She was concerned about excretion in breast milk since she was pregnant during the COVID ‘pandemic.’ When asked if information has emerged that validates her choice, said she thinks it does, but wanted to go on record that she was not speaking on behalf of the FDA.
Researchers reported in a 2022 paper that messenger ribonucleic acid, which is in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 shots, was detected in human breast milk. Another paper, in 2023, detailed similar findings.
Pfizer and Moderna did not return requests for comment.
And ‘Dilbert’ comic strip creator, Scott Adams, just admitted to having the same aggressive turbo cancer as former President Biden.
“The smartest, happiest people are the ones who didn’t get the vaccination, and they’re still alive.” ~ Scott Adams, Dilbert creator
The resolution to adopt the proposed “Pandemic Agreement” was finally made available on May 15, 2025.
The WHO seeks to have its cake and eat it too.
They want nations to begin to implement aspects of the “Pandemic Agreement” even though the agreement cannot be signed until at least after the 79th World Health Assembly in May 2026.
NO VOTE SHOULD OCCUR UNTIL THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND AGREED UPON
In my opinion, the World Health Organization needs to be abolished and removed from the face of the planet.
(See link for article, the WHO draft resolution, and important videos)
_________________
**Comment**
According to this, the agreement centers on something called the PABS system, a global plan to share profits from so-called “pandemic pathogens.”
“They literally talk about pathogens with pandemic potential,” Roguski said. “They don’t need to have an actual outbreak.”
Roguski warns their goal is to build permanent mRNA infrastructure, fast-track approvals, and hand out billions in contracts—before a single case is reported.
Even worse: every country, including the U.S., is still on the hook unless they opt out of the WHO’s International Health Regulations by July 19, 2025.
Trump may have promised to leave, but the clock is still ticking—and the WHO isn’t backing down.
The good news? They failed to reach full agreement.
The bad news? They’re trying to push it through anyway.
CLICK HERE to give each and every Senator a phone call and demand that they instruct their staff to copy House Resolution 79(H.R. 79 – the WHO Withdrawal Act) and submit it as companion legislation in the Senate. Let them know that you want to #ExitTheWHO, not reform it. Members of Congress already gave a letter to Biden in 2022 calling on him to exit the WHO.
Just in case you believe the misguided notion that the WHO cares about ‘health,’ the organization using the One Health approach, aims to monitor and control the global food supply, but shrouds it under the ruse of preventing diseases that cause diarrhea and achievement of the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 