Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

Gates Tries To Justify Side Effects Of Fast-Tracked Vaccine

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/08/04/side-effects-of-fast-tracked-vaccine.

Gates Tries to Justify Side Effects of Fast-Tracked Vaccine

  Approx. 13 Min

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • Bill Gates warns you will probably need multiple doses of any given COVID-19 vaccine for it to be effective
  • The Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (currently known only as mRNA-1273), caused systemic side effects in 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose
  • Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects
  • In the 250-mcg dose group, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses. Three of the 14 participants (21%) in the 250-mcg group suffered “one or more severe events”
  • According to Gates, the side effects are largely due to the high dosages Moderna had to use to achieve the desired antibody levels. But if high dosages are required to create a robust-enough immune response, and higher dosages also cause systemic side effects in most or all people, the safety of the global vaccination campaign may be questionable

As vaccine companies rush to bring a COVID-19 vaccine to market, billionaire Microsoft founder Bill Gates — who routinely funnels hundreds of millions of dollars to various vaccine projects — warns you will probably need “multiple doses” of any given COVID-19 vaccine for it to be effective.1

In speaking with CBS News, Gates said, “None of the vaccines at this point appear like they’ll work with a single dose,” adding that in order to wipe the virus out through universal vaccinations it will require “unbelievably big numbers” of doses. To be effective, he also predicts we will need to vaccinate around 80% of the global population so, yes, we’re talking about tens of billions of doses.

100% of Moderna Vaccine Participants Suffered Side Effects

Gates visibly struggles to maneuver through the pointed questions posed by CBS about the safety of the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine (currently known only as mRNA-1273), which was recently found2 to cause systemic side effects in 80% of Phase 1 participants receiving the 100 microgram (mcg) dose.

Side effects ranged from fatigue (80%), chills (80%), headache (60%) and myalgia or muscle pain (53%). After the second dose, 100% of participants in the 100-mcg group experienced side effects.

In the highest dosage group, which received 250 mcg, 100% of participants suffered side effects after both the first and second doses.3 Three of the 14 participants (21%) in the 250-mcg group suffered “one or more severe events.”

Despite these worrisome results, the trial is being heralded as a big success, and vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit has been quoted4 as saying we now know “that it’s safe in 45 people,” and that “it doesn’t have a very common side effect problem.”

Clearly, we have very different perceptions of reality on what “very common” means. If 80% to 100% is considered uncommon, then just what level of harm must be inflicted in order for a vaccine to be viewed as having a questionable safety profile?

According to Gates, those side effects are largely due to the high dosages Moderna had to use in order to achieve the desired antibody levels. But, if high dosages are required to create a robust-enough immune response, and higher dosages also cause systemic side effects in a vast majority of people, just how safe will this global vaccination campaign be?

Keep in mind, the 45 participants in Moderna’s Phase 1 trial were healthy individuals between the ages of 18 and 55.5 Meanwhile, over 90% of Americans are metabolically unhealthy and struggle with chronic health conditions that can make them more prone to vaccine complications.

What’s more, frail elderly are unlikely to survive serious vaccine side effects, yet people over 80 are the most vulnerable to COVID-19 and would theoretically stand to benefit from the vaccine most.

Coronavirus Vaccines Have Been Notoriously Prone to Failure

High risk of side effects is probably to be expected, considering a) the history of coronavirus vaccines in general, b) most of the COVID-19 vaccines under development are relying on mRNA technology that have never been used in vaccine production before now, and c) the vaccines are being fast-tracked, forgoing animal studies.

Starting with the first issue, researchers have been unable to produce a coronavirus vaccine despite decades-long efforts. While SARS-CoV-2 is a novel human coronavirus, there are seven others that cause respiratory illness in humans, including four that trigger the common cold,6 which is why vaccine makers have been trying to develop coronavirus vaccines in the past.

Among the coronaviruses that cause respiratory illness are SARS and MERS. Coronavirus vaccine efforts gained speed in early 2002, following three SARS epidemics.

However, such efforts have proven highly problematic as coronavirus vaccines have a stubborn tendency to trigger paradoxical immune responses, and researchers have not been able to find a solution for that. This alone is why fast-tracking a COVID-19 vaccine is a terribly risky decision. As reported by Reuters, March 11, 2020:7

“Studies have suggested that coronavirus vaccines carry the risk of what is known as vaccine enhancement, where instead of protecting against infection, the vaccine can actually make the disease worse when a vaccinated person is infected with the virus.

The mechanism that causes that risk is not fully understood and is one of the stumbling blocks that has prevented the successful development of a coronavirus vaccine.

Normally, researchers would take months to test for the possibility of vaccine enhancement in animals. Given the urgency to stem the spread of the new coronavirus, some drugmakers are moving straight into small-scale human tests, without waiting for the completion of such animal tests.

‘I understand the importance of accelerating timelines for vaccines in general, but from everything I know, this is not the vaccine to be doing it with,’ Dr. Peter Hotez, dean of the National School of Tropical Medicine at Baylor College of Medicine, told Reuters.”

Why a Vaccine May Trigger More Severe Illness

In my interview with Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who chairs the board of directors of the Children’s Health Defense,8 he reviewed some of the failed efforts to produce a viable coronavirus vaccine, starting in 2002, and highlighted the dangers of vaccine exaggeration of the immune response:

“The Chinese, the Americans, the Europeans all got together and said, ‘We need to develop a vaccine against coronavirus.’ Around 2012, they had about 30 vaccines that looked promising. They took the four best of those and … gave those vaccines to ferrets, which are the closest analogy when you’re looking at lung infections in human beings.

The ferrets had an extraordinarily good antibody response, and that is the metric by which FDA licenses vaccines … The ferrets developed very strong antibodies, so they thought, ‘We hit the jackpot.’ All four of these vaccines … worked like a charm.

Then something terrible happened. Those ferrets were then exposed to the wild virus, and they all died. [They developed] inflammation in all their organs, their lungs stopped functioning and they died.

Then those scientists remembered that the same thing had happened in the 1960s when they tried to develop an RSV vaccine, which is an upper respiratory illness very similar to coronavirus.

At the time, they did not test it on animals. They went right to human testing. They tested it on about 35 children, and the same thing happened. The children developed a champion antibody response, robust, durable. It looked perfect, and then the children were exposed to the wild virus and they all became sick. Two of them died. They abandoned the vaccine. It was a big embarrassment to FDA and NIH.”

As it turns out, they eventually discovered that there are two kinds of antibodies being produced by the coronavirus. When you read press releases and studies about COVID-19 vaccines, you’ll see them referring to:

  • Neutralizing antibodies9 that fight the infection, and
  • Binding antibodies10 (also known as nonneutralizing antibodies) that do not prevent viral infection

The binding antibodies, rather than fighting the infection, actually trigger what’s known as paradoxical immune enhancement. As explained above, what this means is that even though you may have a robust antibody response, when you’re exposed to the actual virus, rather than protecting you it actually enhances the virus’ ability to make you sick or even kill you.

Looking at the preliminary findings11 from Moderna’s mRNA-1273 Phase 1 trial, we see that neutralizing antibody responses were quite good, “reducing SARS-CoV-2 infectivity by 80% or more” at day 43. However, we also see that:

“Binding antibody IgG geometric mean titers (GMTs) to S-2P increased rapidly after the first vaccination, with seroconversion in all participants by day 15. Dose-dependent responses to the first and second vaccinations were evident.”

Does this rapid increase in binding antibodies mean paradoxical immune enhancement is a possibility? One of my main concerns with COVID-19 vaccines is, will they actually conduct testing to see if paradoxical immune enhancement occurs? Meaning, will they expose vaccinated participants to SARS-CoV-2, to see what happens?

mRNA Vaccines May Produce Serious Side Effects

Aside from the possibility of a paradoxical immune response, mRNA vaccines may in and of themselves be problematic. Inside your cells, mRNA activate DNA instructions, and act as a template to build a specific protein.

The theory behind mRNA vaccines is that when you inject the mRNA, it will stimulate your own cells to manufacture the virus proteins.12 In this case, those proteins would mimic the proteins found in SARS-CoV-2.

Conventional vaccines train your body to recognize and respond to the proteins of a particular virus by injecting a small amount of the actual viral protein into your body, thereby triggering an immune response and the development of antibodies.

mRNA vaccines are designed to make your body produce its own viral protein, which your immune system would then mount a response to. No previous vaccines have had your own cells produce the viral proteins responsible for producing immunity.

What might go wrong when you turn your body into a viral protein factory, thus activating antibody production on a continual basis? Well, since there are no mRNA vaccines on the market, it’s hard to tell. But, according to researchers at the University of Pennsylvania and Duke University:13,14

“mRNA vaccines have potential safety issues, including local and systemic inflammation and stimulation of auto-reactive antibodies and autoimmunity, as well as development of edema (swelling) and blood clots.”

Some of these effects, such as systemic inflammation and blood clots, resemble severe symptoms of COVID-19 itself. So, does that mean mRNA vaccines might worsen COVID-19 infection? What’s more, since the mRNA vaccines work on the genetic level and could become integrated into your DNA, might they cause long-term, perhaps even generational, problems?

Some COVID-19 Vaccine Trials Are Not Using Inert Placebos

Some COVID-19 vaccine trials also appear to be structured in such a way as to hide side effects, which does not inspire trust. As noted in a July 21, 2020, Wired article,15 some trials are using injected meningococcal vaccine rather than a true placebo, and anytime you use another vaccine as a control, certain symptoms of harm are automatically obscured.

Another way to hide side effects is to administer the vaccine along with certain drugs. One example of this is the University of Oxford’s COVID-19 vaccine trial, which has one study arm in which subjects are given acetaminophen every six hours for the first 24 hours after inoculation.

Is the pain and fever reducer given to mask and downplay certain symptoms and side effects, such as pain, fever, headache or general malaise? It might. As noted by Wired:16

“The press release for … results from the Oxford vaccine trials described an increased frequency of ‘minor side effects’ among participants. A look at the actual paper, though, reveals this to be a marketing spin …

Yes, mild reactions were far more common than worse ones. But moderate or severe harms — defined as being bad enough to interfere with daily life or needing medical care — were common too.

Around one-third of people vaccinated with the COVID-19 vaccine without acetaminophen experienced moderate or severe chills, fatigue, headache, malaise, and/or feverishness.

Close to 10 percent had a fever of at least 100.4 degrees, and just over one-fourth developed moderate or severe muscle aches. That’s a lot, in a young and healthy group of people — and the acetaminophen didn’t help much for most of those problems.”

Gates Continues Push for Global Vaccine Empire

As discussed in several previous articles, including “How Bill Gates Monopolized Global Health” and “Deconstructing Bill Gates’ Agenda,” Gates is one of the financial beneficiaries of this pandemic. His foundation both funds vaccine developers and owns stock in them.

While he claims there’s separation between these two, it’s a flimsy one at best, and clearly illegal. While the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation doles out grants, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust is a separate entity that manages the Foundation’s assets.

However, these two entities have glaringly obvious overlapping interests, and grants given by the foundation frequently benefit the value of the trust’s assets directly. I wrote about this illegal setup in “Bill Gates — Most Dangerous Philanthropist in Modern History?” This is why, despite giving away billions of dollars, Gates’ “Decade of Vaccines” has doubled his worth, from $54 billion to $103.1 billion.

Since President Trump stopped the U.S. funding of the WHO, Gates is now the largest funder of the World Health Organization, which is laying down the ground rules that all nations are expected to follow, which, of course, includes the recommendation to vaccinate, as soon as a vaccine becomes available.

Gates’ remarkable rise to influence on global health matters is founded not on expertise but on money. Just like John D. Rockefeller before him, Gates gained public adoration by donating money to ostensibly “humanitarian causes” — and purchasing good publicity.

Nowadays, he needs all the good publicity he can buy. As more people are getting wise to his greedy get-rich vaccine schemes, his reputation is rapidly tarnishing.

According to an April 23, 2020, Newspunch article,17 410,000 people had signed a White House petition18 to investigate the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation for crimes against humanity and medical malpractice. At the time of this writing, the petition has garnered 628,668 signatures. That’s well over six times the number required to illicit an official response. The petition is still open if you’d like to add your signature.

+ Sources and References

____________________

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/08/17/correlation-coefficient-covid-deaths-qivc-flu-shots/

Excerpt:

There is a very strong correlation between the flu shot and COVID deaths in those 65 years of age and older.

The flu vaccine also increases COVID-19 infection by 36%:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/23/flu-vaccine-increases-coronavirus-infection-risk-36/

One of the best reads on the COVID vaccine:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/21/inovio-covid-19-vaccine-uses-electricity-to-drive-dna-into-body-cells/

Excerpt:

Some of the outstanding questions about DNA vaccine safety include:23

  • chronic inflammationbecause the vaccine continually stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies

  • possible integration of plasmid DNA into the body’s host genome resulting in mutations

  • problems with DNA replication

  • triggering of autoimmune responses, and

  • activation of cancer-causing genes

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/29/dr-fauci-pushes-for-covid-19-vaccine-despite-research-showing-vaccinated-may-get-sicker-and-even-die-lab-animals-got-sicker-too/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/09/gates-funded-coronavirus-vaccine-starts-testing-in-people/

Excerpt:

Various groups have uncovered that numerous COVID-19 vaccines have aborted fetal cell lines (PER C6 Ad5 technology) which not only has moral implications for many but safety concerns according to the FDA:

“Residual DNA in vaccines derived from tumorigenic cells, including those transformed by Ad5, can pose potential risks to the vaccine recipient in two respects: oncogenicity and infectivity. Each of these biological properties must be considered and evaluated for each cell substrate.”  https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/covid19-vaccine-makers-using-aborted-fetal-cells/ and http://Moderna mRNA-1273 Covid-19 Vaccine Uses Aborted Fetal Cells – Sanofi Pasteur’s Version Does Not

Also, please remember these same authorities don’t want Lyme/patients to have access to long-term therapy.  They say it’s dangerous.  Yet, when it comes to an experimental, DNA vaccine causing many side effects, they are silent, yet determinedly move straight ahead.  Just another example of how the two diseases are handled very differently.

PPE Developer on N95 Masks: 70% of What You Breathe is Not Filtered

 Approx. 7 Min

PPE developer on N95 masks: 70% of what you breathe is not filtered

By Tamara Ugolini

August 06, 2020

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis, we’ve all been learning new words and phrases, and one of those is PPE — personal protective equipment. Well, Ron Mitchell knew all about that decades before the rest of us, because he helped develop it.

While covering an anti-mask event in Cobourg, I ran into Ron, and our conversation was so interesting, we’ve decided to show you the whole thing. If anyone is qualified to explain how masks work (or don’t), it’s Ron Mitchell.

For 30 years, Ron assisted in developing PPE for the nuclear industry: plastic suits, hoods, electric shock resistant footwear, a diffusion sampler and, of course, masks.

(See link for article here:  https://www.rebelnews.com/ppe_developer_ron_mitchell_n95_masks_70_per_cent_not_filtered?)

______________________

**Comment**

Best 7 minutes you could ever spend.  Very clear – MASKS DON’T WORK!

For more: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/08/13/best-video-on-masks-yet-new-health-problems-emerging-from-continuous-mask-wearing-but-attempted-murder-charges-sought-for-those-who-refuse-them/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/03/act-now-tell-your-officials-to-make-mask-wearing-voluntary/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/31/new-cdc-and-who-study-proves-no-evidence-face-masks-prevent-virus/?

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/19/face-masks-pose-serious-risks-to-the-healthy-dr-blaylock/

40+ Practitioners Failed to Recognize Lyme Disease As Root of My Ailments

https://www.lymedisease.org/gabriela-40-practitioners-lyme/

40+ practitioners failed to recognize Lyme disease as root of my ailments

CHD Will Sue the University of California Over Mandatory Flu Vaccine Policy

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/chd-sues-the-university-of-california-over-mandatory-flu-vaccine-policy/?

AUGUST 13, 2020

CHD Will Sue the University of California Over Mandatory Flu Vaccine Policy

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chair, Children’s Health Defense

Dr. Janet Napolitano says mandatory flu shots will “lessen the chance of being infected with COVID.” However, prevailing research suggests that flu vaccines actually raise the risk from coronavirus infection.

A January 2020 US Pentagon study (Wolff 2020) found that the flu shot INCREASES the risks from coronavirus by 36%.

“Receiving influenza vaccination may increase the risk of other respiratory viruses, a phenomenon known as “virus interference…’vaccine derived’ virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus…”

Many other studies suggest the increased risk of viral respiratory infections, including coronavirus, following vaccination for influenza.
  • A 2018 CDC study (Rikin et al 2018) found that flu shots increase the risk of non-flu acute respiratory illnesses (ARIs), including coronavirus, in children.
  • A 2011 Australian study (Kelly et al 2011) found that flu shots doubled the risk for non-flu viral lung infections.
  • A 2012 Hong Kong study (Cowling et al 2012) found that flu shots increase the risk for non-flu respiratory infections by 4.4 times.
  • A 2017 study (Mawson et al 2017) found vaccinated children were 5.9 times more likely to suffer pneumonia than their unvaccinated peers.

Children’s Health Defense is aware of a contrary study published last month by Gunther Fink et. al. That report appears to conclude that flu vaccines may be prophylactic against coronavirus. The study, of Brazilian populations, has many dubious unexplained outcomes including a 47% death rate among study subjects, raising numerous unanswered questions about the methodology and validity of this research.

UC campuses should not be encouraging flu shots until we have unambiguous science supporting efficacy against COVID.

If you want to join our fight against the “UC Jab” visit CHD and fill out the form. Please include details about your opposition to this mandate. We would like plaintiffs representing all the UC system schools and disciplines.

© [8/13/2020] Children’s Health Defense, Inc. This work is reproduced and distributed with the permission of Children’s Health Defense, Inc. Want to learn more from Children’s Health Defense? Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. Your donation will help to support us in our efforts.

_______________________

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/14/numerous-studies-shows-flu-vaccine-puts-you-at-higher-risk-for-covid-and-other-respiratory-viruses/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/03/01/flu-shot-nearly-kills-man/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/12/11/ny-senator-passes-away-at-47-after-linking-illness-to-flu-shot-symptoms/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/08/08/brain-injured-girl-in-virginia-diagnosed-with-adem-after-flu-shot/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/12/14/man-blames-flu-shot-for-blindness-partial-paralysis/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/12/07/nevada-man-diagnosed-with-guillain-barre-syndrome-after-getting-flu-shot/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/03/22/vaccines-best-video-yet/

 

70 Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome Publications Ignore Infection

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/seventy-post-treatment-lyme-disease-syndrome-ignore-luche-thayer/

Seventy Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome Publications Ignore Infection

By Jenna Luche-Thayer

Senior Advisor – US Government, United Nations, non-profits, corporate social responsibility programs

INTRODUCTION

There is compelling evidence that persistent Lyme infection can cause debilitating and disabling symptoms and even death. Despite this evidence, the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention and National Institutes of Health (NIH) continue to support policies and practices that deny persistent infection.

Since the late 1990s, research terms have been introduced and disseminated that claim to represent one patient subgroup, be mechanistically neutral and explore possible reasons for persistent Lyme symptoms. These terms include Post Lyme Syndrome (PLS), Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS), Post Treatment Lyme Disease (PTLD), and Post Lyme Disease Syndrome (PLDS) —referred to as ‘post Lyme’.

The objective of this literature review was to determine whether the broadly used and promoted ‘post Lyme’ terminology is neutral or biased regarding the cause of persistent Lyme symptoms. The findings are based on 103* peer-reviewed publications (PubMed.gov) from 1999 to 2020 that include the terminology PLS, PTLDS, PTLD and PLDS.

*There were 104 publications found by ‘key word searches’; one was excluded because its text could not be accessed.

NEUTRAL OR BIASED?

The post Lyme terms are described by the IDSA, CDC and NIH as symptoms that occur after ‘appropriate infection treatment’ —this infers that infection should be excluded as a cause of persistent Lyme symptoms.

These research terms have also morphed into clinical diagnoses, the most common being PTLDS and PLS. These clinical diagnoses are now commonly assigned to patients who suffer persistent symptoms following the IDSA recommended two-to-four week antibiotic treatment.

The CDC website does not refer to PTLDS as a research terminology. The CDC refers to PTLDS as a medical condition and states PTLDS is not treated with antimicrobials/antibiotics. CDC also links PTLDS to reference articles that use the term medically unexplained symptoms (MUS).

MUS is problematic and disputed. The American Psychiatric Association found MUS to be an overly broad and exploited term, e.g. MUS was being wrongly applied to cases of complex multisystem illness instead of seeking biological causes for illness. For these reasons, it was deleted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM–5).

The NIH website makes the following statements regarding PTLDS:

·       “In patients who have non-specific symptoms after being treated for Lyme disease and who have no evidence of active infection (patients with PTLDS) studies have shown that more antibiotic therapy is not helpful and can be dangerous”

·       …”results showed no benefit from prolonged antibiotic therapy when compared with placebo in treating those symptoms.”

·       …”study authors concluded that additional antibiotic therapy for PTLDS was not supported by the evidence.”

·       “A [PTLDS] positive response to prolonged antibiotic therapy may be due to the placebo effect.”

Both the CDC and NIH appear to promote a ‘no infection present, no antimicrobial/antibiotic treatment agenda’ for PTLDS and other post Lyme terms.

The CDC, NIH and IDSA also define these post Lyme terms as having ‘subjective symptoms’. Objective symptoms are those that can be proven scientifically, e.g. a fever, and may be due to infectious causes. In contrast, subjective symptoms are based on what ‘the patient thinks/believes they suffer’ and lends itself to the diagnoses of somatic/psychological/psychiatric disorders and causes.

Persons suffering any chronic illness, including persistent Lyme infection, may develop secondary psychosomatic and psychiatric disorders. However, a post Lyme diagnosis in clinical settings often results in treatments limited to the secondary psychosomatic and psychiatric disorders and denial of adequate antimicrobials for the underlying infection.

Post Lyme symptoms are described as “pain, fatigue, or difficulty thinking that lasts for more than 6 months after they finish treatment.” This list largely ignores well documented complications —including cardiac, central nervous system, organ, eye, endocrine and immune system— that arise from under-treated infection and can resolve or improve if treated.

There are also prominent Lyme researchers who promote the neutrality of these post Lyme terms. In many public statements and articles, the former Chair of the Federal Tick Borne Diseases Working Group says, “Notably, PTLD is a mechanistically neutral research definition and the term “post-treatment” refers to the patient’s status of having been previously treated with appropriate antibiotics.”

This statement obviously infers the infection has been adequately treated; indicating PTLD does not include infection causation of symptoms and is therefore not mechanistically neutral.

FINDINGS

The review of the post Lyme literature showed:

·       70 of the 103 publications note post Lyme symptoms exclude infection causes and/or the need for infection treatment. One assesses antibiotic Lyme treatment trials, makes no recommendation for additional antibiotic Lyme treatment and indicates intravenous antibiotics should not be pursued.

·       20 of 103 publications indicate infection is a possible cause of persistent symptoms (one that includes a review of standard serology tests is in this group).

·       Only 13 of 103 publications focus on antimicrobial/antibiotic treatment for infection causing persistent ‘post Lyme’ symptoms.

·       There are very few researchers investigating treatments to address persistent Lyme infection.

·       Only 3 of 103 publications broaden the persistent symptoms to include severe complications, e.g. cardiac and neurological.

·       Among the 70 that exclude infection, there is a focus on psychological/psychiatric disorders and/or post infectious autoimmunity and/or neuroborreliosis that excludes post Lyme.

·       US government funders of post Lyme studies largely ignore infectious causes of persistent symptoms. These funders include: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institute of Mental Health, National Center for Research Resources and Department of Energy.

·       The numbers of post Lyme publications began to increase rapidly in 2013 and gained more government funding. Prior to 2013, there were only 17 publications; whereas 86 articles were published on PubMed.gov between 2013 and August 13, 2020. Of these 86 publications, 59 excluded infection.

Of note: Seven of the 13 articles focused on infection causality were authored by Professor Ying Zhang of Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. In contrast, 15 of the 70 publications that excluded infection were authored by researcher John Aucott of John Hopkins Lyme Disease Research Center. 

Of note: Nine of the post Lyme studies that ignore infectious causes of persistent symptoms were funded by Lyme nonprofits that advocate on behalf of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

It appears the US government has actively denied persistent Lyme infection for decades while spending millions of tax dollars studying this stealth pathogen that can evade the immune system and resist antimicrobials (research funding readily available on https://grantome.com/).

What could be driving this contradictory behavior?

A 1998 Congressional Record on Amendment No. 3020 Sec.708 provides some clues.

The Congressional Record states ”long term treatment expenses can exceed $100,000 per person [approximately $158,950 in 2020] —a phenomenal cost to society”. It was then recommended to expand DOD’s research into preventing and treating Lyme Disease and other tick-borne illnesses as these infections are recognized as a threat to our military readiness. (See records below.)

Cost containment and liability may be a forceful reason behind the government downplay of persistent infection that requires ongoing care. There are many hundreds of thousands of military personnel and other government employees who are at risk for Lyme infection as a result of their employment requirements.

These government employees include all military/United States Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, Department of Energy, Department of the Interior, Department of State, Department of Transportation, Department of Health and Human Services/CDC/NIH, Department of Agriculture, Indian Health Service, Appalachian Regional Commission, Delaware River Basin Commission, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Agricultural Research Service, Foreign Agricultural Service, Forest Service, Farm Service Agency, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Rural Utilities Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Bureau of Land Management, Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Bureau of Reclamation, and United States Geological Survey.

This may explain why government funds flow towards those post Lyme studies that focus on psychosomatic/psychiatric disorders and can be contained within inexpensive palliative care models. The powerful insurance industry also show quarterly profits when persons suffering from persistent infection are shunted into palliative care.

It is obvious that post Lyme terms are not neutral and that they have a strong ‘anti-infection causality bias’. The IDSA, CDC, NIH and other government entities actively promote a ‘no infection present, no antimicrobial/antibiotic treatment agenda’ through post Lyme research terms and clinical diagnoses.

The clear majority of post Lyme publications:

·       have not advanced treatments for a persistent infection that debilitates, disables and kills

·       encourages symptom management or palliative care, as opposed to infection treatment

·       promotes treatment limited to psychological/psychiatric disorders

Post Lyme research has not served the patient community well and should be abandoned by all those committed to the welfare of this vulnerable, marginalized and rapidly increasing patient population.

…………………………………………………………………………………………

© Copyright 2020. Global Network on Institutional Discrimination, Inc. All rights reserved.

Jenna Luché-Thayer. 35+ years working globally on the rights of the marginalized. Former Senior Advisor to the United Nations and the US Government. Director, Ad Hoc Committee for Health Equity in ICD11 Borreliosis Codes. Founder, Global Network on Institutional Discrimination, Inc. —Holding institutions accountable for political and scientific solutions.

Author of $Lyme. Email jennaluche@gmail.com website: www.gnid.world

___________________

**Comment**

And this, right here, is why the Lyme community is similar to Alice in Wonderland –complete with the Queen of Hearts, the Mad Hatter, the Cheshire Cat, and the March Hare.

We find ourselves in an alternate reality with people who are quite content to keep us there and will lie, cheat, and steal to make it happen.

And, similarly to Alice, all the Lyme community has to do to get out of Wonderland is to WAKE UP and stand up to the figures in authority.  

iu-73