Author Archive

Lyme Disease: Are We Looking For the Wrong Culprit?

http://  Approx. 18 Min

Oct. 1, 2020

Lyme Disease: Are We Looking For the Wrong Culprit?

Tatjana Mijatovic, PhD

The video describes the overall high expansion of undiagnosed Lyme disease cases worldwide and the possible link to screening only for B. burgdorferi and rarely testing for B. miyamotoi. Identify the utilization of phage-based testing and bacterial presence as related to testing choices and late/chronic stage patients Discuss how the overall high failure rate of tick-borne infection (TBI)-related testing underscores the necessity for novel approaches.

Background: Borrelia-related diseases (Lyme disease and relapsing fevers) are increasingly prevalent, severe, difficult to diagnose and treat. The high failure rate of tick-borne infection testing undermine treatments‘ strategy and monitoring.
Aims: The goal of this contribution is to bring the focus on the importance to enlarge borreliosis-related testing targets and shed some light on high prevalence of B. miyamotoi presence both in ticks and late stage undiagnosed patients.

Methods: Bacteriophages could become a diagnostic tool based on the principle that if there are phages it is because there are living bacteria. Phelix Charity together with Leicester University microbiology department have recently developed a Borrelia Phage-based PCR test searching for 3 major Borrelia groups (Borrelia burgdorferi sl (including B. burgdorferi ss, B. afzelii, B. garinii, B. spielmanii, etc), Borrelia miyamotoi and Relapsing fever group (B. recurrentis, B. hermsii, etc). This method is efficiently used to assess both human samples and ticks.

Results: Since July 2019, over 2100 results from patients originating various countries have been obtained. Testing included mainly late stage / chronic patients and the aggregated data are showing 30 % negative results and 70% positive among which over 60 % indicated the presence of specific Borrelia miyamotoi phages. Furthermore, ticks from 2019 and 2020 have been analyzed by the same method. The obtained results on ticks showed that over 60% were found positive for Borrelia miyamotoi and only 15% for B. burgdorferi sl.

Conclusion: This is the first large scale report on prevalence of B. miyamotoi in the ticks, as well as in late stages of borreliosis. Seen a high prevalence of B. miyamotoi in tested ticks, further supported by similar percentages found in tested patients, one can hypothesize that the high failure rate of current two-tier screening testing, searching for B. burgdorferi sl only, might be due to the wrong testing target. In other words, the overall high expansion of undiagnosed Lyme disease cases worldwide might be linked to the screening choice focusing only on B. burgdorferi sl and only rarely testing for B. miyamotoi while the later one seems to be much more prevalent. Further accumulation of data both from the patients and ticks should bring the answer to the question are we searching for a wrong culprit. Searching for actual bacterial presence using phage-based testing might pacify the debate and controversies on testing choices and late/chronic stage patients.

______________________

**Comment**

Since Borrelia miyamotoi is not a reportable illness to the CDC, no one has any clue about prevalence but reports are coming in continually that it’s highly likely to be a much bigger problem than ‘authorities’ believe.

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/14/how-many-negative-lyme-tests-are-due-to-b-miyamotoi/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/18/what-you-need-to-know-about-borrelia-miyamotoi/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/23/could-borrelia-miyamotoi-infections-explain-persistent-lyme-symptoms/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/02/15/b-miyamotoi-in-ca-ticks-for-a-long-time/

Ticks Produce Antibiotic That Protects Them From Human Skin Bacteria

https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/12/419216/lyme-disease-ticks-produce-antibiotic-protects-them-human-skin-bacteria

Lyme Disease Ticks Produce Antibiotic That Protects Them From Human Skin Bacteria 

Gene Provides Protection During the ‘Really Risky Sport’ of Feeding on Blood

By Vicky Stein

Dec. 10, 2020

Ticks live dangerous lives, spending most of their time questing for a host across wildly different habitats and seasons. Once they encounter a reptile, bird, or a mammal like us, they become intimately connected with it – and all of its bacteria and viruses – for days on end. Though ticks are notorious for transmitting pathogens such as the Lyme disease bacterium, how does their immune system keep them safe from contracting pathogens themselves?

In a study published in Cell on Dec. 10, 2020, a research team led by UC San Francisco’s Seemay Chou, PhD, provides an answer to this mystery. The work, Chou said, reveals that ticks are exquisitely constructed blood-sucking machines, with immune systems specially tailored for this unique lifestyle. Their defense strategies are carried out both inside and outside their bodies, she said, killing even our resident microbes as they feed on us.

Five years ago, in work published in Nature, Chou and colleagues found a gene in tick DNA that produces a microbe-killing protein. In the new study, senior author Chou leveraged that discovery to show that, without the protection offered by this gene, ticks are vulnerable to infection with Staphylococcus, one of the most common types of “commensal” bacteria. These bacterial species carpet our skin surface, but generally don’t harm us.

“This is the first time anybody’s identified a natural pathogen of ticks, and established a mechanism for it,” said Chou, an assistant professor of biochemistry and biophysics at UCSF and Chan Zuckerberg Biohub Investigator whose work is supported by a Sanghvi-Agarwal Innovator Award. “Ticks pass more microbes to humans, livestock, and other animals than any other known arthropod, but now their own vulnerabilities are on the table.”

The tick gene in question, known as dae2, originally evolved in bacteria, where the protein it encoded worked as an offensive agent against other bacteria. Several hundred million years ago, right around the time that the ancestors of some of today’s ticks began feeding on blood, those ticks “stole” the gene, making it a part of their own genomes.

According to Chou, dae2 represents a rare example of so-called horizontal transfer of a gene from a bacterium to an animal, and the fact that this transfer occurred as blood feeding evolved might not be a coincidence.

“I’ve always wondered why blood-feeding is even a thing,” said Chou. Not only does blood take a lot of energy to process into useful food, but biting on and attaching to much larger animals “seems inherently like a really risky sport.” With a strong, dae2-enhanced immune system, she said, tick species could have flourished, expanding to fill their bloody ecological niche.

When she first began working with dae2 in Ixodes scapularis, the deer tick, Chou thought ticks’ acquisition of the gene must have something to do protection against tick-dwelling bacteria like B. burgdorferi, which causes Lyme disease in humans and other animals. In experiment after experiment, she and members of her lab tried to find a mechanism for the gene to inhibit this bacterium, until they had an epiphany.

It makes no sense for ticks to have acquired this immune effector to kill off the bacteria that it’s most notoriously known to stably associate with,” she said. So instead, the lab began the much more complicated process of looking for bacteria that ticks are not known to live with peaceably. When members of the lab, including co-first authors Beth M. Hayes, PhD, and Atanas D. Radkov, PhD, proposed exploring the idea that dae2 might protect against Staphylococcus bacteria, “I actually pooh-poohed the idea – I bet a beer against it,” said Chou.

But after the dae2 protein was introduced to a cloudy vial of cultured staph bacteria, Chou was shocked. “The tube went from murky to clear in like, a second,” she said. “I was kind of glad to have lost this bet. After two years of trying to figure out what was going on, it all started falling together.”

Now the team had a direction. As detailed in the Cell paper, the researchers embarked on a series of wide-ranging experiments, first comparing dae genes in a range of tick species with the bacterial tae genes from which they were originally derived. With these comparisons and high-resolution protein structures in hand, they used computer models of these proteins to compare their shape and orientation when they came in contact with molecules found in bacterial cell walls.

Next, they moved on to testing the proteins directly against actual molecules extracted from bacterial cell walls. While dae2 protein could quickly degrade this material, taken from common skin bacteria, Tae2 could not. Dae2 also killed a wide a range of bacteria, notably three very common species that are symbiotic partners of human skin.

The researchers then investigated whether dae2 could reach our skin. They found dae2 protein in tick salivary glands and saliva, and observed that, from there, the protein was transferred to the ticks’ blood meal hosts.

When Chou and the team cancelled out the effects of dae2 in a group of blood-fed ticks, using a technique known as RNA interference in some mice and immunizing other mice to the protein, they found higher levels of Staphylococcus bacteria than in ticks with the functioning protein. These ticks also stayed smaller and gained less weight than ticks with dae2.

“This is a new way of thinking about how ticks interact with microbes,” said Chou. Microbes borne by ticks cause disease in humans and animals worldwide, but that’s only half the story, she said. “Their commensal is our pathogen, and our commensal is their pathogen.”

Authors: Joining Chou, Hayes, and Radkov were Fauna Yarza, Sebastian Flores, Jungyun Kim, Ziyi Zhao, and Victoria Bowcut, all of UCSF; Katrina W. Lexa, of Denali Therapeutics, Liron Marnin and Joao H.F. Pedra of the University of Maryland School of Medicine; and Jacob Biboy and Waldemar Vollmer of Newcastle University.

Funding: The research was funded in part by grants from the NIH (R01AI132851, R01AI134696, R01AI116523), Research Councils UK (EP/T002778/1), the UCSF Program for Breakthrough Biomedical Research, and the Sandler Foundation. Additional support came from the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub, the Johnson & Johnson WiSTEM2D Award, the Pew Biomedical Research Foundation, and the Sangvhi-Agarwal Innovation Award. Yarza was supported by the National Science Foundation (1650113) and a grant to UCSF from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute through the James H. Gilliam Fellowships for Advanced Study program.

Disclosures: The authors declare no competing interests.

The University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) is exclusively focused on the health sciences and is dedicated to promoting health worldwide through advanced biomedical research, graduate-level education in the life sciences and health professions, and excellence in patient care. UCSF Health, which serves as UCSF’s primary academic medical center, includes top-ranked specialty hospitalsand other clinical programs, and has affiliations throughout the Bay Area.

CDC Thwarts efforts to Track COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Reactions

ICAN, through its attorneys, has obtained documents from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) which evidence that the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) purposely prevented the reporting of vaccine adverse events to the Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS).  The documents produced show that as of early 2007, the CDC had “strong interest and enthusiastic support for” a Harvard project intended to automate the creation and submission of reports of vaccine adverse events to VAERS.  The CDC explained that this effort to automate VAERS reporting:
 
“will constitute an important, exciting, and long-awaited advance in the field of vaccine safety.” 
 
HHS even provided $1 million in funding to Harvard researchers for this project who then created the system and tracked adverse vaccine events from 2007 to 2010.
 

The researchers identified 35,570 reportable reactions in just 376,452 vaccine recipients (9.4%)!  They also determined that:

“fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.” 

 
After the Harvard researchers made these shocking findings, the investigators on the project explained that,
 
“Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because … the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.” 
 
Despite initially expressing overwhelming support and enthusiasm for this project, the CDC refused to cooperate to finalize the system after realizing that automating VAERS revealed a high rate of adverse events after vaccination. 
 
Had the CDC cooperated and had this project been completed and the system utilized, it could have been used and perfected for a decade prior to the administration of COVID-19 vaccines, for which an automatic, adequate surveillance system is so desperately needed.  It also could have significantly increased knowledge regarding vaccine safety, potentially preventing numerous injuries to infants, children, and adults.
 
In 2006, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, an HHS agency, provided a $1 million grant to create a spontaneous reporting system to VAERS at Harvard Pilgrim Health Care. This system was created to address the issue of underreporting to VAERS, a problem which has been highlighted for over 30 years. The automated system would also assure reporting from a known sample size and thus convert VAERS from a passive to an active reporting system, thereby permitting more reliable conclusions to be drawn from the analysis of the VAERS database – something this country has long needed. 
This automated system is needed now more than ever in light of the warp speed development and roll out of COVID-19 vaccines. 
Documents obtained by ICAN’s attorneys, led by Aaron Siri, show the enthusiastic support by the CDC and other federal health agencies for this project until 2010 when the CDC fell silent and refused to continue to cooperate with Harvard. 
 
The documents recently produced in response to ICAN’s request regarding this project includes a letter of support to the Harvard investigators of the project. That letter from Dr. Robert Davis, the then Director of the Immunization Safety Office at the CDC stated, in part:
 
This letter confirms the strong interest and enthusiastic support of the Center for Disease Control’s Immunization Safety Office (ISO) for your proposed project, ESP-VAERS “Electronic Support for Public Health – Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System.”  Your intention to create software to prospectively identify potential vaccine adverse effects in electronic medical records, and to facilitate clinicians’ evaluation and electronic reporting to VAERS, will constitute an important, exciting, and long-awaited advance in the field of vaccine safety. The capability you hope to create will serve both individual clinicians as well as national efforts. 
 
The production also shows that HHS’s Project Officer wrote that:
 
“This is a well-designed and well-thought out study submitted by an excellent research team that has had previous success in developing similar project. There is also strong support for this project from Federal agencies including in particular the CDC, and this could be critical in the eventual dissemination of the study findings.”
 
This enthusiastic support, however, would disappear after the Harvard researchers created the automatic reporting system which revealed a frightening level of adverse events.  As explained by the federally funded Harvard researchers:
 
Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals. Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions … were identified.
 
In summary, the preliminary data showed that over only a three-year period, there were 35,570 reportable reactions in just 376,452 vaccine recipients (9.4%)! 

This is much higher than the “1 in a million” frequently spouted by the medical community.  The Harvard researchers also concluded that “fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported.”

After successfully automating the spontaneous creation of adverse event reports at Harvard Pilgrim, the developers asked the CDC to take the final step of linking VAERS and the Vaccine Safety Datalink with the Harvard Pilgrim system so that these reports could be automatically transmitted into VAERS.  Given HHS’s statutory mandate to assure safer vaccines, and its support for this project, it should have moved forward quickly to implement the spontaneous VAERS reporting system developed by Harvard. 
Instead, the CDC refused to cooperate.  As the Harvard researchers explained:
Unfortunately, there was never an opportunity to perform system performance assessments because the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.

As usual, the CDC was more concerned with protecting its own image and its vaccine program than protecting individuals from harm. 

This can also be clearly seen from ICAN’s previous letter exchange with HHS and CDC regarding automating VAERS which is available here.  The fact that the CDC and HHS refuse to automate VAERS reporting supports the conclusion that they are intent on keeping VAERS as a passive reporting system in order to hamper its ability to provide the public with reliable information regarding frequency in which adverse events occur following vaccination.
 
Had the CDC cooperated as it pledged to at the start of the Harvard Pilgrim project, this automated surveillance system could have been implemented to track COVID-19 vaccine adverse events.  Instead, HHS and its agencies are now scrambling to create new tracking systems and to integrate already-existing systems in order to try and track, in any meaningful way, adverse reactions to these COVID-19 vaccines.
 
ICAN will continue to take additional legal steps to hold the CDC accountable for its unconscionable refusal to automate VAERS reporting.  Its disregard for improving patient safety and abandonment of protecting people in favor of protecting vaccine products are shameful.  ICAN will never stop fighting for informed consent and continues to build its case that the federal government is withholding the information needed to give informed consent.  We will never stop fighting for you, unlike the CDC which fights for pharmaceutical companies and their products. 
______________________
 
**Comment**
 
More proof that the CDC is NOT about public health.  They are only concerned about their financial bottom-line and their conflicts of interest:  
Lyme/MSIDS patients have a ‘heads-up’ on how public ‘authorities’ rig the system for their own purposes:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/26/cdc-playbook-learning-from-lyme/
 
Recently, Dr. Bransfield, a Lyme literate doctor, also laid this out simply:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/12/30/covid-19-what-we-already-knew-from-lyme-disease/
 
 
Learn more about the COVID-19 vaccine:  

Lastly, please note the serious limitations of these vaccine trials:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/19/covidgate-the-corruption-of-clinical-trials-part-1/

  1. No one knows length of protection of the vaccine
  2. No one knows how this affects children as schools prepare to mandate the vaccine to obtain an education
  3. No one knows the synergistic effects of this vaccine with others
  4. No one knows the long-term effects of this vaccine
  5. The Pfizer clinical data is explained here: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/14/pfizer-covid-vaccine-frenzy-high-volume-of-adverse-reactions-expected/
  6. The Moderna trial is also being tested on those with a low risk of COVID
  7. ZERO trials were designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcomes (hospital admission, intensive care, or death)
  8. ZERO trials are designed to determine if they interrupt viral transmission
  9. Moderna’s trial lacks adequate statistical power to assess severe COVID-19 outcomes.  The reason?  Hospital admissions and deaths are too uncommon in the study population of 30,000 people

 

 

COVID-19: What We Already Knew From Lyme Disease

https://www.ilads.org/ilads-conference/ilads-annual-conference-2020/abstract/#specific-pcr

COVID-19 Confirmed What We Already Knew from Lyme Disease

Robert Bransfield, MD

Although Lyme disease and COVID-19 are caused by different pathogens with different transmission, the approach to COVID was a repetition of experiences with Lyme disease. We saw the following:

  • healthcare policies often fail with emerging diseases
  • CDC disease statistics, antibody testing, and case definitions can be misleading
  • many disease diagnostic and treatment guidelines are flawed
  • peer reviewed articles in prestigious journals can be fraudulent
  • flawed randomized controlled trials can create a fool’s gold standard
  • politicians make catastrophic, fatal, errors with healthcare policies
  • money and politics corrupt science and medicine
  • treating patients cannot be delayed waiting for a vaccine

Emerging diseases can best be overcome by recognizing we can learn the most from our patients, community doctors who treat patients know more than bureaucrats, we need to give significant consideration to the clinical judgment of front line physicians, and chronic and relapsing infection occurs and must be recognized.

____________________

**Comment**

Bingo!

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/30/how-the-cdc-uses-their-own-guidelines-to-rig-the-system/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/26/cdc-playbook-learning-from-lyme/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/25/why-should-we-care-about-lyme-disease-a-colorful-tale-of-government-conflicts-of-interest-probable-bioweaponization-and-pathogen-complexity/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/02/22/why-mainstream-lyme-msids-research-remains-in-the-dark-ages/

Lyme Disease: Acute and Chronic-Defined & “It Ain’t Just One Thing”

Samuel M Shor, MD

Objective: Chronic Lyme disease has been a poorly defined term and often dismissed as a fictitious entity. In this paper, the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) provides its evidence-based definition of chronic Lyme disease.

Definition: ILADS defines chronic Lyme disease (CLD) as a multisystem illness with a wide range of symptoms and/or signs that are either continuously or intermittently present for a minimum of six months. The illness is the result of an active and ongoing infection by any of several pathogenic members of the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato complex (Bbsl). The infection has variable latency periods and signs and symptoms may wax, wane and migrate. CLD has two subcategories,

  • CLD, untreated (CLD-U)
  • CLD, previously treated (CLD-PT)

The latter requires that CLD manifestations persist or recur following treatment and are present continuously or in a relapsing/remitting pattern for a duration of six months or more.

Methods: Systematic review of over 250 peer reviewed papers in the international literature to characterize the clinical spectrum of CLD-U and CLD-PT.

Conclusion: This evidence-based definition of chronic Lyme disease clarifies the term’s meaning and the literature review validates that chronic and ongoing Bbsl infections can result in chronic disease.

Use of this CLD definition will promote a better understanding of the infection and facilitate future research of this infection.

_______________________

**Comment**

Words matter.

This, right here, is a main difference between what mainstream medicine ascribes to and what a Lyme literate doctor ascribes to.  The difference is life-changing to say the least.  Those in the former camp will treat patients with the woefully inadequate 21 days of doxycycline while the latter camp realizes this illness can wax, wane, and linger – and this isn’t even taking into account the many coinfections that can also wax, wane, and linger.  

If patients have numerous persisting infections they have more severe cases for a longer duration of time, requiring numerous medications for far longer than the unscientific CDC Lyme guidelines.

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/11/25/what-makes-a-doctor-lyme-literate/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/category/lyme-disease-treatment/

http://  Approx. 42 Min.

Sept. 30, 2020

It Ain’t Just One Thing

David Kaufman, MD; Ilene Ruhoy, MD, PhD

Chronic Lyme Disease (CLD) is a complex chronic illness. Controversy exists regarding whether it represents persistent Lyme infection or a post-infectious, possibly autoimmune syndrome, or a combination of both. This is an important topic as a greater understanding of CLD can help guide treatment options for these patients who suffer sometimes for decades and are often turned away from healthcare providers. Effective treatment has been notoriously difficult. Importantly, patients with CLD generally meet all the criteria for a diagnosis of ME/CFS. Interestingly as discussed below, these same patients very often present with similar signs, symptoms, and diagnoses that are seen in a large majority of ME/CFS patients regardless of any history of CLD.

We will discuss the diagnostic concept of a Septad which includes:

  • Autoimmune disease
  • Mast Cell Activation Syndrome
  • Dysautonomia including small and large fiber neuropathy
  • Dysmotility/Dysbiosis/SIBO
  • hypermobility Ehler Danlos Syndrome (hEDS)
  • Cranial Cervical Instability (CCI)/Tethered Cord (TC)
  • Infection including especially tick borne diseases, viral reactivation, and mycoplasma

The Septad concept provides a guide for both physician and patient regarding both the work up and the treatment plans. The identification of these particular entities can be made with objective data and can assist physicians in implementing management options. This presentation will briefly discuss each of these disorders including symptoms, evaluation, and possible treatment suggestions.