Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

Dr. Dashore on Lyme Disease

 Approx. 4 Min

Lyme Disease Treatment Expert, Dr. Dashore, Ph.D.

Dr. Dashore on Representative Chris Smith’s legislation called the Kay Hagan Tick Act Bill after former U.S. Senator Hagan who recently succumbed to Powassan Virus

For more:    https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/06/07/representatives-create-bipartisan-bill-tick-act/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/11/01/tick-act-bill-renamed-passed-unanimously/

Please note that Dr. Dashore treated her son with BOTH antibiotics and natural remedies as he was coinfected with numerous other infections and their mission was to “save his life.”  I would argue that treatment should always be to save lives.  Few people get Lyme alone but rather are infected with a hodgepodge of pathogens that are extremely difficult to treat. Patients need individualized and focused treatment for this beast.  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/10/30/study-shows-lyme-msids-patients-infected-with-many-pathogens-and-explains-why-we-are-so-sick/

DEA Issues Warning Over Counterfeit Prescription Pills From Mexico Contining Fentanyl

https://www-masslive-com.cdn.ampproject.org/c/s/www.masslive.com/news/2019/11/dea-issues-warning-over-counterfeit-prescription-pills-from-mexico-containing-fentanyl.html?

DEA issues warning over counterfeit prescription pills from Mexico containing fentanyl

DEA Counterfeit Fentanyl Pill Warning release final Nov 2019
By
The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration has issued a warning about large amounts of counterfeit prescription pills containing fentanyl coming from Mexico.

Mexican drug cartels are manufacturing and importing mass quantities of pills and, based on a sampling of tablets seized nationwide between Jan. and Mar. 2019, the DEA found that 27% contained potentially lethal doses of fentanyl.

“Capitalizing on the opioid epidemic and prescription drug abuse in the United States, drug trafficking organizations are now sending counterfeit pills made with fentanyl in bulk to the United States for distribution,” said DEA Acting Administrator Uttam Dhillon. “Counterfeit pills that contain fentanyl and fentanyl-laced heroin are responsible for thousands of opioid-related deaths in the United States each year.”

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fentanyl is used as an opioid pain reliever, treating severe pain like some forms of cancer.

“It is 50 to 100 times more potent than morphine,” states the CDC on their website. “It is prescribed in the form of [adhesive] patches or lozenges.”

DEA Special Agent in Charge Brian D. Boyle highlights that fentanyl and other highly potent synthetic opioids are the primary problems behind the opioid crisis in New England.

“Fentanyl [is] involved in more deaths than any other illicit drug,” said Boyle.

Massachusetts has been ranked among the top ten states with the highest rates of drug overdose deaths involving opioids with 1,913 drug overdose deaths involving opioids in 2017. Opioid deaths in Massachusetts are twice as high at the national average, according to the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

According to the DEA, a lethal dose of fentanyl is estimated to be just two milligrams but can vary based on an individual’s body size, tolerance, and amount of usage.

__________________

**Comment**

Similarly to the false climate change narrative regarding the spread of ticks and Lyme disease, there is another false mantra – that those requiring pain medications are behind the “opioid crisis.”  Nothing could be further from the truth.

This article from The Guardian, states that the upsurge in prescription opioids was in response to an under prescription crisis and that those suffering with severe and chronic pain were left to “writhe in pain” until policies changed in the 70s and 80s. The author points out that the opioid scare campaign of today mimics a scare campaign of history:  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/07/truth-us-opioid-crisis-too-easy-blame-doctors-not-prescriptions

You know something is wrong when a stage four cancer patient is sent home with Tylenol.

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/10/16/washington-post-congress-engineered-dea-racket-to-protect-opioid-drug-giants/

Now, thanks to the Washington Post’s investigation, we learn that the DEA directly negotiated with the drug industry to grant opioid manufacturers selective immunity from criminal seizure and prosecution. Is anyone really surprised? This has been the DEA’s business model for decades.

The following graphic (see link above), published by the Washington Post, reveals that at least 56 DEA and Justice Dept. officials left their government jobs to work for the pharmaceutical industry.

 

Lyme Disease – Chris Newton Refutes BBC Report Stating Most Patients Just Have Chronic Fatigue

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/lyme-disease-bbc-reports-experts-who-have-answers-chris-newton/?

Lyme disease: the BBC reports on experts who have the answers!

Chris Newton
Chris Newton
Research Director CIMMBER (Center forImmuno-Metabolism, Microbiome… See More

Those familiar with this site will note several previous articles on the roll-out of the 5G communications system. In one of these (‘The BBC: arbiter of reality!’) I commented on a BBC article entitled, ‘Does 5G pose health risks?’. This article was posted on their website by their ‘Reality Check Team’. Now I respond as Dr Chris Newton, Scientific Lead for Fight Lyme Now (a science-based lobby group for Lyme disease), to a recent BBC article on Lyme disease where again opinionated experts are quoted.

The strapline to the BBC article posted on the 10th of this month was ……The majority of people who believe they have a chronic form of Lyme disease are more likely to have chronic fatigue syndrome, experts suggest.

The article apparently uses sources within PHE and the NHS and quotes Dr Sarah Logan from London’s Hospital for Tropical Diseases, who suggested that:

“Most people who now think they may have had Lyme disease, in fact have a syndrome that is more in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome.”

The article appears to target individuals who believe they have contracted Lyme disease and seek help outside the NHS. As someone familiar with the medical condition of individuals who apparently have Lyme disease, I will now present a counter argument in support of these patients.

When an individual first presents to a health professional, such as a GP (under the current UK system), information has to be gleaned within the short allotted time for the appointment. Bearing in mind that Lyme disease is a complex condition, where the symptom complex crosses-over with other conditions (including, chronic fatigue syndrome; see Schwarzbach, 2016), it is not easy to to give a definitive diagnosis on first interviewing the patient. The exception to this, is where the patient presents with the erythema migrans or bullseye rash, as presented in the caption of the BBC article.

So I have reason to believe that I have contracted Lyme disease and I present my condition to the NHS health professional. What is the most likely diagnosis?

To derive data on this, in late 2015, my colleagues and I established a survey to look at diagnosis, treatment and cost of Lyme disease in the UK. One of the first questions asked of individuals who suspected they had Lyme disease was, ‘When you first reported and/or presented your symptoms to the NHS, what INITIAL diagnosis were you given?‘ In response, the top 10 diagnoses were;

  1. 1) CFS
  2. Fibromyalgia (Fmy)
  3. Psychiatric disorder (Psy)
  4. ME
  5. Post Viral Infection Syndrome (PVIS)
  6. Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS)
  7. LYME DISEASE
  8. Sleep disorder
  9. Autoimmune condition (Au)
  10. Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease
The number of conditions diagnosed on initial presentation extended to 40 or more and these included rheumatoid arthritis, thyroid disorders, Alzheimer’s disease and multiple sclerosis.

From the survey data we next considered individuals who managed to convince their health professional to run a ‘Lyme disease test’. The NHS considers their Lyme test ‘highly accurate‘ (see BBC article), so how many individuals responding to the survey tested positive. At the time of presenting these data (Newton, 2017), 790 of 1120 survey respondents, were tested. Of these, blood from 220 individuals tested positive for antibodies to Borrelia. Further analysis revealed that only around 25% of these 220 individuals received a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease at first presentation.

In total 93 individuals from the group of around 790 who were tested for antibodies to Borrelia, received an initial NHS clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease. By considering the number of test positive samples as a proportion of the 93 or so individuals who received a clinical diagnosis of Lyme disease (at first interview), the clinical sensitivity for the laboratory confirmation of Lyme disease in Scotland, England and Wales was around 63%. From the group of individuals who were given Lyme disease as an initial diagnosis, 12 were diagnosed in Scotland and of these, 11 tested positive (in Scotland). So the laboratory test sensitivity for Scotland was just over 90%. Subtracting these cases from the total (Scotland, England and Wales) gave a sensitivity for laboratory confirmation of Lyme disease in England and Wales of around 60%.

Drilling down a little further into the survey data, of the remaining individuals (around 75%) from the group who had a positive laboratory test (220), a range of diagnoses were given on initial presentation of their symptoms to an NHS health care professional (usually GP). For this group the most prevalent diagnoses were CFS followed by a Psychiatric disorder (Psy), PVIS, autoimmunity (Aut), Fibromyalgia (Fmy) and IBS. When test positive results were considered for each category of diagnosis for all individuals in the group of 790 (those who managed to get their blood tested for Borrelia antibodies), percentage positivity for each diagnostic group was; 19% (CFS, 45/233), 32% (Psy, 12/38), 38% (PVIS, 9/24), 15% (Aut, 7/47), 16% (Fmy, 7/45) and 41% (IBS, 5/12). Where no diagnosis was given, the sensitivity was 54% (27/50).

How do these data address the assertion that….. ‘Most people who now think they may have had Lyme disease, in fact have a syndrome that is more in keeping with chronic fatigue syndrome’.

Although not a scientific study, our survey represents the very population that Dr Sarah Logan is addressing, i.e. self diagnosed individuals who believe they have Lyme disease. It would appear from the survey that when first diagnosed, ‘most’ individuals have a condition other than Lyme disease but it is not true to say that most have CFS, as more than half were diagnosed with a condition other than CFS. Surprisingly or not, for those individuals where no diagnosis was given, the sensitivity approached that of the Lyme disease group (54% no diagnosis v. 63% Lyme).

Notwithstanding the lack of scientific rigour, these survey data agree with other studies for non-selected patients (non-clinically selected by health care professional or biomedical scientist) in that the sensitivity (quoted as accuracy in BBC article) of the NHS laboratory testing system was around 60% in England and Wales. This could mean that out of the 790 samples tested for Borrelia antibodies, as opposed to 220 positives, around 316 blood samples should have tested positive, this is a positivity rate of 40% (from a self-selected group) (see below for sensitivity with at least two tests).

In the context of our survey, the use of the word ‘most’ by Dr Logan is not appropriate. It undermines the high proportion of individuals with a positive NHS test result, (especially if you are one of the 96 (316-220), out of the 790 tested, who are told to ‘go and see a psychiatrist‘ as your result was negative (or indeed, even if it was positive-see survey statistics above). Also, what about the 330 out of 1100 respondents (29%) to the survey who ‘didn’t make the cut’ (no lab. test performed). Perhaps their powers of persuasion or their conviction was not up to muster (with respect to getting a test done)!

As the reader will note, this short article hasn’t begun to address the issue of tests performed by the NHS versus tests performed by the private sector. In my experience, individuals do not initially consider the NHS tests as ‘rubbish‘. Private testing is expensive and so the first approach (and I would advise) is to get testing done by the NHS. Often in desperation (many of these people are extremely unwell and have been this way for some time) individuals go to private clinics in the UK, Germany and sometimes the US. Often multiple tests are performed and overall test positivity is high.

Our survey shows that for around 500 individuals who could not get tested or for whom the test came back negative, 90% received a positive result from a private lab.

In terms of multiple tests or a combination of at least two tests, the paper by (Callister et al., 2016) is most important. Although it is not entirely clear what test is performed for Lyme disease (Borrelia antibody detection) in all the regional hospital laboratories (not all samples are sent to the PHE reference laboratory), the reference laboratory runs the C6 Elisa. The Callister paper shows that by combining the C6 Elisa with a test that measured IFNgamma secreted from activated T lymphocytes (those exposed to Borrelia antigens), sensitivity was increased from 59% for the C6 alone, to 83% for the C6 in combination with the T-cell test. This is a relatively large increase in sensitivity.

If the same protocol was applied to our group of self-reporting ‘Lyme patients’, the result could be that the overall picture changed to most individuals having a laboratory diagnosis of Lyme disease.

Most branches of science concern data. Words alone are not enough and articles on Lyme disease, where hypotheses (or even thoughts) are discussed, without presenting data (as in the case of the recent article on the BBC website), serve only to further the divide (antagonism) between the professional and the informed individual.

Long-term Lyme disease ‘actually chronic fatigue syndrome’ https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-49998344?fbclid=IwAR2_pdpHycbTEqMDK5pm2892RpC2E_6MomS1LJo3o2kRMhgoPeblRdLZBZY

Schwazbach A (2016) Personal communication

Callister SM, Jobe DA, Stuparic-StancicA, Miyamasu M, Boyle J, Dattwyler RJ, Paul M. Arnaboldi PM (2016). Detection of IFN-γ Secretion by T Cells Collected Before and After Successful Treatment of Early Lyme Disease. Clinical Infectious Diseases 62(10):1235–41

Note about the author: In 2015, Dr Chris Newton joined Dr Armin Schwazbach and Mr Demetrios Loukas to form the Lyme disease lobby group, Fight Lyme Now. Chris is an experienced biomedical scientist with academic interests in infection, inflammation and chronic disease. As will be apparent from some of his recent posts, he is not only passionate about biomedical science, he is interested in all areas of science, particularly those that impinge on the wellbeing of our global population (of all species).

Image

Online Practitioner Webinar on Saturday for Doctors Treating Lyme/MSIDS

unnamed-2

Wisconsinites – A Reminder to Please Write & Oppose Assembly Bill AB313 Today

As most of you are aware, there are numerous Lyme bills currently being voted on at the Wisconsin Capital:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/11/01/update-on-wisconsin-lyme-bills-please-contact-your-representative-on-ab-313/

Many of these are quite good as they address things like putting signage at park locations warning about the risk of ticks and Lyme disease and making bug spray available; however, there is one bill – AB 313, which poses a serious threat to patients & to the doctors who dare treat them.

Exact wording of the bill: Assembly Bill 313

AB 313, previously LRBs 1652 and 3362 – Establishes a sixteen-member Tick-Borne Disease Study Committee to create a report for the legislature on consensus-based recommendations for policy changes on awareness, prevention, surveillance, diagnosis, reporting, and treatment of Lyme Disease.

This bill would allow Governor Evers to appoint a 16 member advisory panel to offer recommendations on how doctors diagnose and treat Lyme disease.

Many of us have explained to our representatives about the potential for that bill to go side-ways since nothing about Lyme/MSIDS is agreed upon in the medical community as well as the fact that appropriate Lyme guidelines already exist.

This bill is huge government overreach – telling doctors how to diagnose and treat patients.  All of the Lyme literate doctors I spoke with oppose this bill for numerous reasons – one of which is the fact this bill could seriously interfere with the way they currently treat patients as well as could increase scrutiny of their medical practice. They are already under severe scrutiny with many having to pay fines to the state medical board:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2012/03/04/dr-hoffmann-updated/  My own doctor spent over 50K to protect his practice against such a witch hunt.

There are currently two different Lyme disease guidelines in play:
  1. Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) Guidelines:  https://www.idsociety.org/practiceguidelines#/name_na_str/ASC/0/+/  Under the IDSA’s tutelage, patients have been abused for decades and are told they have “medically unexplained symptoms” or MUS. Then they are sent to a psychiatrist and given anti-depressants. For an example for the typical handling of Lyme disease by mainstream medicine, see this graph:
  2. International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) Guidelines:  https://www.ilads.org/patient-care/ilads-treatment-guidelines/

Lyme literate doctors follow the ILADS guidelines as they take into account that people are often infected with numerous pathogens and that many of these pathogens are persistent, necessitating treatment to be overlapping in nature and often for an extended period of time. They also acknowledge that sexual and congenital transmission can occur.

The IDSA guidelines, followed by the majority of doctors, pretty much states that 21 days of doxycycline will cure this. They still deny the persistence of borrelia and other pathogens as sexual and congenital transfer.

The two guidelines couldn’t be more different yet we can not force doctors to follow one or the other. The old saying, “You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink,” comes to mind. As much as we would love to force all doctors to follow the ILADS guidelines we shouldn’t. The practice of medicine is still, thankfully, up to the practitioner who underwent years of schooling to become a doctor. Doctors aren’t told how to treat cancer, diabetes, or a broken leg and they shouldn’t be told how to treat Lyme/MSIDS either.

Currently, patients need to see an experienced practitioner who is trained by ILADS.  This requires doctors to have continuing medical education specifically in the treatment of tick borne illness.  Mainstream medicine does not require this and most doctors are woefully educated; however, the choice to treat Lyme/MSIDS patients appropriately should be up to the practitioner.

Please write the following Representatives behind AB313 and let them know we oppose it:

Introduced by Representatives Mursau, Milroy, Anderson, Crowley, Edming, Gruszynski, Hesselbein, Kulp, B. Meyers, Ohnstad, Ott, Ramthun, Rodriguez, Sargent, Shankland, Sinicki, Snyder, Spreitzer, Tauchen, Thiesfeldt, Tusler and Rohrkaste; cosponsored by Senators Cowles, Miller, Hansen, Kapenga, Larson, Olsen, Petrowski, Ringhand, Smith and Tiffany

Please see the following letter written by Mike Nickel, current moderator for the online Wisconsin Lyme support group:

Letter regarding AB313

Dear Rep. Mursau

My name is Mike Nickel. I’m the past president of the Wisconsin Lyme Network {501 c3}, a statewide non-profit dedicated to the education of lyme disease and tick-borne illness to the general public and medical community of Wisconsin. We have liaison with medical professionals not only in Wisconsin, but nationwide as well as multiple Wisconsin support/patient groups as well as nationwide. The largest organization of MD’s in the country that deals exclusively with lyme disease and tick-borne illness is called ILADS. {International Lyme and Associated Disease Society of America}. www.ILADS.org

All of our organizations statewide and nationwide adamantly oppose AB313. It is our firm belief that the state legislature will greatly endanger lyme patient care and the practice of the state MD’s that provide that care by passing AB313. ILADS has already established lyme and tick-borne treatment guidelines which are utilized by ILADS trained practitioners nationwide.

We’re completely puzzled why the state of Wisconsin feels it should empanel a committee, made up largely of lay people to recommend any type of medical procedure much less something as complicated and severe as tick-borne illness.

Parts of the legislation are fine and some of the other Lyme bills are endorsed by us but AB313 recommending “guidelines’ can cause great harm to the patient community and even drive our lyme treating practitioners out of the state of WI.

Insurance companies and Medical boards can use any “recommendation of short-term antibiotics” as an excuse to sanction Doctor’s not treating to those specific guidelines. This would literally destroy effective treatment for the scores of lyme patients in this state and the 30,000 newly infected here annually. 

On behalf of the Wisconsin lyme community we ask that you please pull this bill. I would be more than happy to meet with you personally and discuss how we could proceed with a bill that would be fully supported by the community and be of great help to patients. I and other advocates look forward to working with the Assembly on effective legislation to benefit our patients. Please let me know a date that would work for you.

Thank you for your consideration,

Mike Nickel

_____________________

My letter to the Wisconsin Representatives:

Dear Wisconsin Representatives,
My name is Alicia Cashman, and I head up the Madison Lyme Support Group. Both my husband and I fought a ten year battle in treatment for Lyme/MSIDS and have finally achieved our health back. I can directly attribute this health to going to doctors trained by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS). These doctors take on huge risk treating patients appropriately as they stand in direct opposition to the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA).
There is a very real probability that Assembly Bill 313 could put these ILADS trained Wisconsin doctors in jeopardy.
Thankfully in the United States medical practitioners are still allowed the freedom to diagnose and treat patients in the way they feel is best. I’m surprised that you would even consider telling doctors how to diagnose and treat patients. This is huge government overreach.
 
Every single ILADS trained Wisconsin doctor I spoke with is opposed to AB 313.
Why would you want to make things harder for our health professionals who already take on significant risk in treating us? Currently, patients from other states come to the state of Wisconsin where we have a handful of doctors who treat this appropriately. Passage of this bill could potentially make them want to take their practices elsewhere where they have a God-given freedom to diagnose and treat patients under the Hippocratic Oath free of government interference.
While I appreciate the intent, legislation has often worked directly against patients as well as doctors under the law of unintended consequences. I feel AB 313 would follow this path as it calls upon a panel that very well could be stacked against patients, not to mention the fact that nobody has the right to dictate how a practitioner treats patients.
Currently, there is activity at the federal level which is following this law of unintended consequence: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/05/20/petition-remove-eugene-shapiro-from-federal-tbd-working-group/.  The Federal Tick borne disease Working Group is now stacked with Infectious Disease doctors who deny the chronic/persistent nature of Lyme disease, that it can be sexually and congenitally transmitted, and that it takes far more than 21 days of doxycycline to affectively deal with this polymicrobial illness.
Also, back when Representatives Craig and Sargent wanted to put the nursing board in charge of “best practices” on how to treat Lyme disease, which would have effectively replaced one tyranny with another, a Wisconsin pediatrician showed up to the public hearing stating that Lyme testing used by ILADS treating physicians was “home brewed,” despite these labs being CLIA-certified, and passing the most stringent requirements for labs. This is just one example among a thousand how mainstream doctors continue to side with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA) and its biased approach. I found his statement directly on the CDC website.
I’ve written this before but I include it again as it serves as a solid reminder that until things change at the federal level, state legislation will continue to be undermined by the CDC:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/07/07/cdc-sabotages-state-laws-protecting-lyme-patients/.  This makes perfect sense when you understand the backstory:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/02/22/why-mainstream-lyme-msids-research-remains-in-the-dark-ages/ and https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/07/19/biological-warfare-experiment-on-american-citizens-results-in-spreading-pandemic/.
I seriously implore you to please remove AB 313.
Sincerely,
Alicia Cashman
Madison Lyme Support Group

Address

Phone number