Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

The Criminalization of Science Whistleblowers

Approx. 10 Min.  The Criminalization of Science Whistleblowers

Best 10 minutes you will ever spend to educate yourself.  Please, please, watch this. This explains the sorry state of science at present. When scientists discover or even question anything contrary to the accepted narrative they are ostracized and typically their careers are destroyed.

In this particular video, Dr. Judy Mikovits explains how she was thrown in jail without a search warrant after she found retroviruses in vaccines. Mainstream news has all but ignored this important discovery that could be affecting 6% of the U.S. population, and before you disregard that as insignificant, that’s 20 million people infected by a retrovirus.  A pretty big deal.

Specifically, Dr. Klinghardt, a well known LLMD, has stated that it’s a significant problem in his patients with chronic illness – even “intractable” (chronic/persistent) Lyme/MSIDS:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/06/23/the-role-of-retroviruses-in-chronic-illness-a-clinicians-perspective/

The entire sordid story here:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/10/15/vaccines-and-retroviruses-a-whistleblower-reveals-what-the-government-is-hiding/

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/03/01/vaccines-could-contribute-to-disease-epidemics-due-to-retrovirus-contamination/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/12/09/vaccines-likely-infected-with-retroviruses-linked-to-chronic-disease/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/03/12/unrest-documentary-about-me-cfs-on-netflix/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/02/07/infections-following-vaccinations/

Are some vaccines contaminated?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bptNj4zPF_Y  Dr. Garth Nicolson  He discusses recent studies that show some forms of contamination in vaccines scheduled for children. He also discusses Gulf War Syndrome and how that could be tied to contamination of vaccines in the military.

BTW:  Just saw this today:  https://www.healthnutnews.com/new-york-county-just-banned-unvaccinated-kids-from-all-public-places/

Officials announced that beginning on Wednesday at 12 a.m., “anyone under 18 who has not yet been vaccinated will be barred from public places until they receive the MMR vaccine or until the emergency declaration expires in 30 days.”1

To balance this hysteria:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/03/15/medical-doctor-of-50-years-current-measles-hysteria-not-based-on-science-but-scientism-a-quasi-religious-faith-in-vaccines/

ALL OF THESE OUTBREAKS ARE TYPICAL OF THOSE THAT HAVE OCCURRED EVER SINCE THE VACCINE WAS INTRODUCED, AND OTHERS JUST LIKE THEM WILL UNDOUBTEDLY CONTINUE TO OCCUR EVEN IF THE DRUG INDUSTRY’S WELL-FUNDED CAMPAIGN SUCCEEDS IN VACCINATING EVERYBODY.

Unfortunately, what they’re being told is not only bad ethics, but also bad science, based on assumptions that are flatly contradicted by current research, and violate basic human rights and moral values that we still profess to hold dear.

Often assumed to be self-evident without even having to be stated, much less proved, their bottom-line assumptions are really two postulates that depend on each other to support them — namely,

  1. that these small outbreaks of measles and other infectious diseases that we vaccinate against are initiated and propagated by unvaccinated individuals; and
  2. that vaccines are not only miraculously safe, but also uniformly effective in rendering people immune to these diseases without having to contract them, so that only the unvaccinated are still susceptible and thus capable of transmitting them to others.

But you can’t have it both ways. For if these postulates were really true, if the immunity conferred by the measles vaccine were truly comparable to the absolute, lifelong immunity that results from coming down with and recovering from the actual disease, then the unvaccinated would pose no threat to anyone but themselves, based on a free choice of their own making, such that those taking the vaccine would have nothing to worry about.

Conversely, if vaccinated individuals are indeed at risk of acquiring the disease from the unvaccinated, then the vaccine is clearly ineffective to that extent, and whatever it does offer cannot be a genuine or reliably effective immunity.

And the beat plays on…..

 

 

 

 

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Formally Challenging CDC Advice on Lyme Disease Rashes

https://www.lymedisease.org/cdc-lyme-disease-rashes/

Formally challenging CDC advice on Lyme disease rashes

CDC Lyme rash

Advocates for Lyme disease patients have filed an “information quality request for correction” complaint that challenges the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC’s) position on how frequently the bull’s-eye erythema migrans (EM) rash occurs in patients with Lyme disease.

The contested information includes statements in CDC publications and presentation materials and on CDC web pages that the EM rash “occurs in 70–80% of the patients with Lyme disease.”

According to Holly Ahern, associate professor of microbiology at SUNY Adirondack and co-author of the complaint, this assertion stems from a 1984 study titled “Epidemiologic Features of Lyme disease in New York.”

Inherent bias

The study design introduced an inherent bias, Ahern said.

“In that study, participants (NYS physicians) were advised by the New York State Department of Health to identify and report patients as having Lyme disease based on the sole reporting criteria of an observed rash.”

The advisory included pictures of “classic” EM rashes, specifically those that had a bull’s-eye appearance. Excluded from this study were persons with non-specific symptoms or other types of rashes who may have had Lyme disease.

“This is a form of confirmation bias in research,” Ahern added, “where study participants were selected to confirm a previous observation rather than investigate the true incidence of EM rash in Lyme disease patients. Prior to this study, the rate of EM in Lyme disease patients was noted to be less than 50%.”

According to the complaint, this study has never been reproduced, and numerous subsequent published studies show the rate of EM in Lyme disease patients to be significantly less than the CDC-cited 70-80%.

In fact, in the study, “An Update on the Diagnosis and Treatment of Early Lyme disease: Focusing on the Bull’s eye, You May Miss the Mark,” the rate of the classic bull’s-eye rash was shown to be 9%, and nearly 50% of the patients did not develop a rash of any type.

Skewed priorities, worse outcomes

According to Bruce Fries, president of the Patient Centered Care Advocacy Group and lead complainant,

“Inaccurate information about the EM rash skews research priorities and results in critically flawed studies that use the rash as an entry criteria and/or end point.

Clinical practice guidelines based on this research lead to worse health outcomes for patients who are misdiagnosed and denied treatment as a result of recommendations based on the faulty evidence. This can increase the number of long-term Lyme disease cases, worsening the current epidemic and increasing the financial impact on our country in terms of lost productivity, disability, and increased medical expenses.”

The complaint requests that CDC conduct a systematic review of the evidence about the frequency of EM rashes in patients with Lyme disease and publish a notice in CDC’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Based on the results of this study, the complainants want CDC to update its guidance on the EM rash in all CDC publications, presentation materials, and websites.

Click here to read the full complaint.

Source: Patient Centered Care Advocacy Group

___________________

**Comment**

In the first ever real time patient group only about a quarter had an “unusual” rash:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/1976circularletterpdf.pdf

Funny how this is never mentioned.

Category:

Activism, Lyme

IDSA Lawsuit: Patients May Have to Undergo Independent Medical Exams

https://www.lymedisease.org/idsa-lyme-lawsuit-medical-exams/

IDSA lawsuit: Patients may have to undergo independent medical exams

Torrey v. IDSA et al

By Mary Beth Pfeiffer

Patients who are suing over alleged denial of care for long-standing Lyme disease may have to submit to medical examination to prove their conditions, a federal judge ruled in a hearing in Texarkana, Texas, federal court.

The ruling hits on a pivotal issue in the potentially groundbreaking case in which 25 living patients and the families of three who have died claim the Infectious Diseases Society of America and six physician-researchers conspired with eight insurance companies to limit Lyme disease treatment.

At the hearing March 11, the court gave conditional OK for the independent medical exams or IMEs, but ordered narratives showing that “good cause has been demonstrated for each IME sought.”

The defense subsequently submitted 29 sealed documents in the names of 24 patients.

Defense seeks to prove patients don’t have Lyme

In another filing, the defendants made clear that they will use patient tests and diagnoses to assert the patients do not have Lyme disease.

According to the defense,

“These [patients’] records establish that the question of whether these Plaintiffs are currently suffering from Lyme Disease or so-called ‘Chronic Lyme’ Disease is in controversy as they have received multiple negative test results … and/or have received different diagnoses (not including ‘Lyme Disease’) related to the same constellation of symptoms,” including fibromyalgia, Epstein-Barr virus, and “genetic maladies.”

Lyme disease tests have long been known to be inaccurate, with evidence growing of the pathogen’s ability to subvert immune responses on which the test is based – an issue that is likely to be argued in the lawsuit.

The hearing in Torrey v. Infectious Diseases Society of America et al also focused on several other contentious issues that will define the scope of the proceedings — and its chance of prevailing. At this point, the lawsuit is still scheduled for a trial in late June.

Other rulings by the judge

Among the hearing’s other outcomes:

  • Patients must provide a tally of the personal costs incurred as a result of the IDSA-insurer policies. This would include lost wages, travel costs to other far-flung providers and the uncovered costs of their care. Significantly, they aren’t seeking damages – just reimbursement.
  • Patients’ attorneys were granted more time to argue that the IDSA defendants likely violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act; the patients hope to prove the defendants acted as a criminal enterprise that used IDSA treatment guidelines as a “predatory device,” driving out competing doctors and harming patients. The judge has already ruled the suit can go forward on assertions that the defendants violated anti-trust laws.
  • On the issue of the medical examinations, the court told the parties to confer “regarding a person who can serve as a court appointed independent medical examiner; defendant will be responsible for the costs of the IME; travel expenses will be shared equally between the parties with respect to the plaintiffs.”
  • The parties are still hashing out issues related to documents to be provided under discovery. The defendants previously were to provide documents dated from four years before the suit’s filing – or to November 2013 — to which the patients’ side objected. The court told the parties to settle on a “reasonable amount of time for defendant to go back for documents.” The plaintiffs, meantime, have been told to “produce all documents going back to beginning.” It is unclear what “beginning” means.

Discovery question

On the issue of discovery, the defendants noted pointedly they have not refused to provide documents. In a slide presentation which was posted after the hearing, defense lawyers acknowledged documents weren’t given — because there were none:

“What Defendants did not produce are any documents that purport to show:

  • Payments from insurance companies to the defendant doctors or IDSA
  • Receipts of payments by the IDSA or defendant doctors from insurance companies
  • Complaints by insurance companies and/or IDSA to state medical boards seeking discipline of so-called “Lyme-literate” physicians
  • Communications between and among the insurance companies and/or IDSA to further any “scheme” to deny patients long-term antibiotic therapy”

The slide ended with the statement, highlighted in red by the defense side: “Such documents do not exist.”

In another development, the two sides agreed on the scope of emails to be turned over in which patients discussed their Lyme conditions. It was not immediately known what search terms were accepted.

After the hearing, the court posted slides on pending defense arguments: That claims against the six named physicians should be dismissed based on a lack of jurisdiction; that 11 plaintiffs should be deposed (which the Torrey attorneys disputed pending resolution of the discovery issue); and that the Torrey side has failed to comply with a court deadline to prove the case qualifies as a claim under the racketeering law, or RICO.

***

Click here to read documents filed in the case, including the lawsuit, assorted motions, the slides referred to above and a summary of the hearing.

________________

**Comment**

If you are just tuning in:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/11/15/lyme-patients-file-lawsuit-against-idsa-and-insurers-over-treatment-denials/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/02/27/should-lyme-patients-rico-lawsuit-include-yale/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/03/05/patient-lawsuit-against-idsa-insurers-moves-forward-in-texas/

Category:

Activism, Lyme

Bioidentical Hormone Talk – Brookfield, WI April 17, 2019

Dr. Deb’s First Talk of 2019!
Wednesday, April 17th at MD Custom Rx in Brookfield, WI
If you want to learn more about Hormones & Bio-Identical Hormone Therapy, you’re in luck – Dr. Deb will be speaking at MD Custom Rx, in Brookfield, WI on April 17th! Come join us from 6:30pm to 8:00pm to listen and learn about BHRT! The cost is $10 per person, received as a customer credit the day of the event.
Call (262) 373-1050 to register!
An Update On Bio-Identical Hormone Therapy
Wednesday, April 17 | 6:30pm – 8:00pm
Are you coming to Dr. Deb’s talk!?
LOCATION
MD Custom Rx – 19035 W Capitol Dr. STE 105 Brookfield, WI (In the Sendiks Towne Center)

DATE AND TIME
04/17/19 6:30pm – 04/17/19 8:00pm

Call (262) 373-1050 to register! Spaces are limited! Cost is $10.00 per person – will receive a supplement credit the day of event!
I’ll be there!
Maybe
I can’t make it

 

 

 

Category:

Activism, Supplements, Treatment

The Shortfalls of H.R. 220 National Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Control and Accountability Act of 2019 – The Devil is in the Details

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/shortfalls-hr-220-national-lyme-tick-borne-diseases-control-osborn/

The Shortfalls of H.R. 220 National Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Control and Accountability Act of 2019 – The Devil is in the Details

The new Lyme Bill HR 220 drafted by Congressman Chris Smith R-NJ and Pat Smith, Executive Director of the Lyme Disease Association was introduced to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on January 3, 2019. To grasp the shortfalls of this bill, one needs to understand the layers of complexity that stem from the: 
  • History of the Lyme epidemic.
  • Controversy over PTLDS vs. Persistence of infection.
  • Current day activities underway to ensure ‘the history’ isn’t rewritten by the truth being revealed through current research and publications.

The following is a re-cap of what I perceive to be the shortfalls of this new bill and recommendations for improvement. For individuals that are not familiar with the issues bulleted above, there are links to information that support the claims and recommendations. Before diving into those devilish details, note the irony in the bill’s name which includes the term ‘accountability’. There is no call for accountability in the bill’s wording.

A quick Disclaimer: I’m not a legislator, physician or scientist. So, you may ask, “Why does my commentary matter?” Indeed it is a fair question. and I will clarify – this is my opinion as a patient that has been participating in Lyme Disease Activism since 2013. It is based on:

  • Facts published in scientific/medical journals and books published by MDs and Journalists and accomplished Global/Government Activists.
  • Information presented at Accredited Medical Conferences I have both attended and personally managed.
  • Communication and collaboration with MDs that have extensive experience diagnosing and treating tick vectored infections.
  • Participation on a committee called GOTCHA – The Global Oversite for Transparency in Health Care Alliance.
  • Participation in and/or observation of all public meetings of the Federal Tick Borne Disease Working Group.
  • Perhaps most importantly, my personal experience battling multiple tick-vectored infections that were not diagnosed in a timely fashion and therefore persist despite extensive antibiotic and supplement treatments prescribed by “experts”.

Shortfall 1: Ignoring Past Mistakes

It appears this Lyme bill was written under the assumption that prior research and previous actions were accurate and appropriate. Revisiting the history of Lyme disease and the epidemic mis-management by multiple entities is essential to drafting an effective legislation that will curb epidemic growth and bring world class diagnostics and therapeutics to the global marketplace. The following links provide a re-cap of the scientific and moral issues of the past and punch holes in the assumption that all prior decisions and actions were effective.

The History of Lyme Disease is A 42 minute Vimeo by Dr. Joseph Burrascano Jr. Dr. https://vimeo.com/306846706

$lyme – A book detailing the corruption and greed surrounding the epidemic written by Jenna Luche Thayer https://www.amazon.com/Lyme-Medical-Mortally-Corruption-Scientific-ebook/dp/B07HVNN9FG

A lawsuit : Insurers Accused of Conspiring to Deny Lyme Disease Coverage https://www.courthousenews.com/insurers-accused-conspiring-deny-lyme-disease-coverage/

Recommendation 1: Correct History

This bill should call for a congressional investigation of the actions of any and all entities which resulted in the mis-management of the epidemic. Individuals that are identified as accountable for inappropriate and/or unethical behaviors, should be permanently barred from participating in any actions spelled out in this bill. This investigation should include a re-examination/recertification of any laboratories involved in handling of infectious pathogens for diagnostics, therapeutic or research and development studies. Criminal and civil charges should be filed and prosecuted accordingly. This is called accountability.

Shortfall 2: Recommendations from The Federal Tick Borne Disease Working Group

The Lyme bill’s language and proposals rely heavily on input and outcomes of the Federal Tick Borne Disease Working Group (TBDWG). Unfortunately, there are issues with TBDWG. Including conflicts of interest, violations of sunshine laws and anti-patient biases.  

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/02/11/anti-patient-bias-embedded-in-tickborne-disease-working-group-and-its-subcommittees/

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/role-lyme-innovation-conflicts-interest-tick-borne-jenna-luche-thayer/

The TBDWG’s key patient representative heads Lyme Disease Association (LDA) a 501c organization whose sources of funding are redacted on the 990 tax filing and therefore are unknown to the general public. LDA will be able to financially benefit from the bill as described on page 19 of the bill under the section called “GRANTS” which states: “The Secretary may award grants to or enter into contracts or cooperative agreements with, public or private nonprofit entities to carry out activities under the paragraph.” If you are not familiar with why this is problematic, read up on “dark money”. https://www.opensecrets.org/dark-moneyorganization. 

Recommendation 2: Remove the recommendations of and all references to the TBDWG.

The TBDWG should be disbanded until the outcome of a congressional investigation recommended in section 1 is published and individuals accountable for any potential corruption and unethical practices are identified and charged accordingly.

Shortfall 3: Tricky Language

Language can be used to convey honesty or deceive. The most important issue (and controversy) surrounding lyme disease to date is the debate over “infection persistence vs. the false nomenclature “post treatment lyme disease syndrome” – PTLDS. PTLDS is a made up term created to sidestep the growing body of scientific evidence that late stage disseminated lyme disease is resistant to current antibiotic protocols of any duration for reasons including but not limited to the formation of persister cells, down regulation of the immune system and the stealth mechanisms of the pathogen itself. Below is a link to just one of 700 journals that provide proof of “chronic lyme”. The TBDWG adopted the term PTLDS and uses it routinely in their Congressional Report – and that is a paramount concern.

https://aac.asm.org/content/59/8/4616 Borrelia Burgdorferi, the Causative Agent of Lyme Disease, Forms Drug-Tolerant Persister Cells.

The following document by Jenna Luche Thayer (Author of $lyme) narrates how the term PTLDS can be used to restrict treatment and deny infection persistence. The adoption of the invented term PTLDS will protect insurance companies profits while leaving patients under insured and insufficiently treated. https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/attention-lyme-communitywords-matter-jenna-luche-thayer/

Page 3 of the Lyme bill, lines 3 – 6 states: “Development of treatments to cure or improve the lives of those who are infected with Lyme disease or other tick-borne disease or who suffer from a tick induced disorder.” The wording “other tick induced disorder” appears to be a deception and placeholder for PTLDS. The term “other disorder” is used ten times in the bill.

Recommendation 3: Remove the terms PTLDS and “other disorder”.

Replace the terms PTLDS and “other disorder” with late stage disseminated lyme disease, persistent lyme disease or treatment resistant lyme disease.

Shortfall 4: Controlling the Narrative by Dominating Diagnostics/Treatment Options

Page 12, of the Lyme bills states: “The Secretary, in cooperation with the Director of the Office, and acting through the Directors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Director of the National Institutes of Health shall conduct and support research to provide for the timely evaluation of promising new and improved diagnostics methods including direct detection tests, antibody-based tests, and tests based on bio signature and biomarker profile to make a specific diagnosis or aid in differential diagnoses. “

This sounds good. There is nothing inherently wrong with funding research for an ideal diagnostic solution. However, there are already diagnostic methods superior to the current CDC/IDSA recommended two-tier ELISA Western Blot which is the “gold standard” accepted and covered by insurance plans. It has been scientifically well documented that this method is as effective as a coin toss. Unfortunately, the superior tests are NOT covered by insurance and financially out of reach for most patients. This is an example of rigging the diagnostic game. Below is an article about the lawsuit filed against the CDC for doing just that. The suit charges the CDC “of employing false, pseudo-scientific theories in order to justify its own anti-consumer actions aimed at perpetuating Lyme disease testing by a flawed technology.” https://www.apnews.com/f018456adcbf4d5c94596963b04fc54d

The other questionable issue with the bill’s diagnostic research language is the ‘biomarker profile’ language. John Aucott, Chairman of the TBDWG has a patent for biomarker technology. (There is that conflict of interest issue again.) Read the document below to connect the trail of breadcrumbs linking PTLDS, the bill’s language of “other disorder” and John Aucott’s filed patent for biomarker. Aucott, filed a patent for a biomarker known as CCL19. Question: Will this biomarker be used to determine treatments for those designated as having PTLDS? Of utmost concern is that MDs will be forced to re-lable patients that have persistent infections with PTLDS (the “other disorder” ) and discontinue treatment of later stage neurological and cardiac infections. The concern is based on prior actions outlined in both law suits linked above that name the CDC as a defendant.

Recommendation 4: Provide patients with a financial safety net by requiring health insurance companies extend coverage for all diagnostics and treatments.

Since at this time there is no 100% accurate diagnostic, add language to this bill that mandates insurance carriers cover all available diagnostic options allowing MDs to choose the test they think is best for the patient. In addition, insert language that acknowledges the scientific body of evidence confirming infection persistence and congenital infection. Mandate insurers cover treatment as recommended by physicians without arbitrary guidelines outlined in the book SLYME referenced in section 1 until such time a 100% effective therapeutic is validated and brought to market at which time Congress can re-visit regulations for insurance coverages of therapeutics.

Shortfall 5: – Censorship Disguised as Collaboration

Page 33 section 8 of the Lyme bill calls for a Common Research Bibliography. News Flash: We already have one. It’s called the internet. Specifically, the bill says: “The Secretary, in coordination with the Director of the Office, shall direct the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality to assemble a bibliography of peer reviewed literature of tick-borne diseases and disorders in the United States, as well as for bartonellosis from whatever cause, appropriately organized for use by the scientific community treating physicians and the public. The bibliography should include literature relating to possible mechanisms of persistent infection with Borrelia Burgdorferi or other types of Borrelia. In conducting and supporting activities under this section, the Secretary shall give priority to Lyme disease and other tick borne diseases based on assessments of disease burden in the United States.

This clause will enable a few (questionable) people to cherry pick research that favors the TBDWG recommendations and term PTLDS. The qualifying term “possible persistence” casts doubt on and discredits the scientific proof of infection persistence. This will permit selected individuals to censor research proving infection persistence and congenital infection -both of which are being experience by patients and documented by research worldwide. Congenital infection has been scientifically proven and was incorporated in the World Heath Organization ICD 11 Diagnostic Codes. https://globallymealliance.org/news/ground-breaking-recognition-lyme-borreliosis-11th-international-classification-diseases/ Unfortunately the code for congenital lyme was recently removed under questionable circumstances that are currently under investigation.

Recommendation 5: No Common Research Repository

The call for a Common Research Repository should be struck from the bill entirely as it is an over-reach of government authority and waste of tax payer dollars. Remove the term “possible persistence” from the bill and replaced with terms such as treatment resistant infection, persistent infection etc.

Shortfall 6 – HHS Control Physician Education & Training

Page 23 section D of the Lyme bill states: “The secretary shall carry out a physician education program that addresses the full spectrum of scientific research related to Lyme Disease and other Tick-borne diseases and disorders….”

Giving the HHS control of physician education is government over-reach and wasteful use of tax dollars. Physician training should be designed and implemented by Universities that teach medicine. Organizations such as International Lyme and Associated Disease Society and the Lyme Disease Association have been a stop-gap measure providing physician education about tick-vectored infections because the institutions that should be have dropped the $lymy green ball.

Recommendation 6: Demand Medical School Curricula Revisions.

Rather than divert tax dollars to physician training dictated by the government, the bill should include language that requires all medical schools to set specific measurable educational goals for updating curricula by a specified date to reflect current research discoveries using complete and full access to all scientific research available without censorship. This should include continuing education programs for current licensed physicians.

Shortfall 7 – Exclusion of Global Expertise

Tick vectored infections are not isolated to the US. It is a global issue. There is no call for involvement of other global experts or the World Health Organization in this bill. The recent removal of the Congenital Lyme ICD code from WHO ICD Code 11 is evidence that the US and other endemic Nations should pool resources and funds to address the issues collectively.

Recommendation 7 – Replace the TBDWG with an International Panel

The bill should include the formation of a Global team that would replace the TBDWG upon the conclusion of a Congressional Investigation into the US’s mismanagement of the epidemic. The panel must bar the participation of those with financial conflicts of interest or prior involvement in immoral/illegal actions identified through congressional investigation. The global panel should comprise equal parts scientists, physicians, and patients. Let’s leave the government out of it, shall we?

Closing Comments

There are a lot of unsavory entities and individuals make gobs of money off the human suffering caused by the debacle that is the Lyme epidemic. I see no harm in pharmaceutical companies and scientists making profits from erectile disfunction medications and other discoveries that improve the quality of life. But given the epidemic of greed, income inequality and well documented prior bad acts, perhaps we should draw a line on profiting off of zoonotic, infectious diseases that are linked to mental illness an suicide. The award-winning Lyme documentary Under Our Skin, and its sequel, Under Our Skin 2: Emergence are now both available for free viewing by members of Amazon Prime. One of Under Our Skin’s #assets is it calls out prior legislation that enabled this mess to unfold in the first place. If you haven’t seen it, I highly recommend you give it a watch.

Category:

Activism, Lyme