Archive for the ‘Activism’ Category

Mechanisms of Vaccine Injury – Part 2

https://jameslyonsweiler.com/2017/11/28/biological-mechanisms-of-vaccine-injury-2-autoimmunity/ Nov, 2017 by James Lyons Weiler

THIS IS THE SECOND PART OF A SERIES OF ARTICLES ON THE BIOLOGICAL MECHANISMS OF VACCINE INJURY. The first of the series focused on the scientific evidence for (1) vaccine-induced mitopathy, (2) vaccine-induced persistent gliosis, (3) vaccine-induced endoplasmic reticulum failures (with both damage to detoxification pathways and to compromised immune systems via downregulation of ERAP1).  Part 1:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/11/28/biological-mechanisms-of-vaccine-injury/

This article presents the scientific basis of autoimmunity from vaccines.

WHEN MOST OF THE KNOWLEDGE from basic science (cell culture and animal studies) seemingly falls apart in clinical trials, something is terribly wrong. Translational research falls apart when the basic science has it wrong, or when the clinical studies are flawed, fraudulent, or non-existent. Our governments have, in the past, relied heavily on the absence of evidence to assure the public on vaccine safety. “There are no studies” does not mean that the studies have been conducted… sometimes, it simply means “We don’t yet know”. They also rely on consistently over-cooked results that would raise the ire of any bona fide and ethical statistician.

Which is why it was most unscientific of the IOM to call for an end to science – after they ignored all of the basic studies on the question of a link between vaccines and autism – even though not all vaccines had been studied.

First, Immunology 101.

The mammalian adaptive immune system is a marvel of natural selection. Foreign proteins, or part of proteins (antigens) are taken up by antigen-presenting cells (APCs) including dendritic cells (DCs), where they processed into peptides and then loaded onto major histocompatibility complex (MHC) molecules for presentation to CD8 T cells via clonotypic T cell receptors (TCRs). (Stick with me, all of this is relevant, I assure you).

One type of T cell, the cytolytic T cells (Tc) can directly lyse a target pathogen cell. Tc’s are activated by MHC Class I on APCs. Another type of T cell, T helper cells (Th’s) are activated by MHC class II and release cytokines that have direct cellular effects themselves. Cytokines also activate macrophages, monocytes and B cells. B cells in particular express surface receptors that bind to surface antigens. When Th cells signal B cells, the B cells secrete antibodies that are supposed to be uniquely specific for the antigen responsible for the Th signal. Those antibodies can bind their specific targets alone, or they can also bind to and activate macrophages simultaneously, via the Fc receptor.

‘Priming’ of the immune system toward autoimmunity has been postulated. Vaccination, of course, often involves multiple exposures due to boosters. There are four mechanisms by which host infection by a pathogen can lead to autoimmunity. These are:

Molecular Mimicry. The pathogen carries elements that are similar enough in amino acid sequence or structure to self-antigen that the pathogen acts as a self-‘mimic’. In molecular mimicry, T or B cells activated in response to the pathogen also happen to be cross-reactive to self proteins. This can lead to direct autoimmune damage and false-positive “friendly-fire” activation of the immune system (via, for example, cytokine signalling due to the release of cytokines as result of autoimmune attacks on self proteins, cells, and tissues).

Epitope Spreading. A pathogen can also cause autoimmune disease via epitope spreading. In epitope spreading, damage to self-tissue occurs due either to the immune response to tissue infected by a persisting pathogen, or direct lysis of healthy cells by the pathogen. APCs take up antigens released from damaged tissue, initiating a self-specific immune response.

Bystander Activation. In this model, an indirect or non-specific activation of autoimmune cells is caused by the generally inflammatory environment that results from infection. The non-specific activation of one part of the immune system leads to the activation of other parts.

Cryptic Antigens. Foreign antigens can lead to autoimmunity via the activation of immunity to antigens that are not usually dominant – they are instead normally invisible to the immune system. It is generally described as an increase in “subdominant” antigens, and is usually attributed, like bystander activation, to the inflammatory environment that arises after infection. The involvement of cryptic antigens is considered likely when one observes increased protease production, and differential processing of released self-epitopes by APCs.

In the first article of this series, I reviewed the role of thimerosal as a specific inhibitor of ERAP1, a critically important protein for healthy immune systems. Read this description of the role of ERAP1 in APCs (Rock et al. 2010):

“ERAP1-deficient cells have reduced surface levels of MHC class I molecules and the peptide-MHC complexes that are made are less stable than on wild type cells… These results suggest that ERAP1 makes an important contribution both to the quantity and quality of peptides available for antigen presentation.”

Peptides presented by healthy cells come from normal autologous (self-generated) genes and are ignored because the immune system is tolerant to them. Aberrant peptide presentation due to low ERAP1 will lead to confusion of the immune system. When CD8 T-cells detect what appear to be foreign proteins because they are mis-processed, any tissue expressing the incorrectly trimmed peptides, either on their surface of during cell death is at risk of autoimmune attack.

The process of thimerosal-compromised ERAP1 failure will match the cryptic peptide model because peptides that do not normally initiate an immune response will appear to be highly immunogenic.

Anaphylaxis

When a total breakdown of normal controls against attacks against the self occurs, widespread autoimmune attacks lead to recurrent cycles of cytokine release and cell death – and any, or all of the processes described can be unleashed simultaneously. Organ damage, damage to blood vessels, and high fever can result in death.

A study of the rates of anaphylaxis reported to the Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD) by McNeil et al. (2016) resulted in a finding of 33 confirmed cases of anaphylaxis from January 2009 through December 2011. Using the rate of 33 confirmed cases after 25,173,965 doses, they estimated the risk of anaphylaxis to be 1.31/million doses. It is interesting to note that 85% of the case of anaphylaxis had prior evidence of atopy (3 with prior anaphylaxis, 16 with asthma, and 9 with specific prior allergies).

The rate of 1.31 per million doses may seem small. However, a search of the VAERS (Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System) database over the same time period (January 2009 through December 2011) reveals that 550 cases of anaphylaxis were reported to VAERS. VAERS is a passive reporting system, and users must acknowledge that the data cannot be used to attribute causality. Individuals who like to claim that VAERS is a sufficient and adequate system point to the positive finding of problems with a rotavirus vaccine. But unless causality can be established using data from VAERS, negative association results of no increase in risk of adverse events are suspect due to under-reporting.

Under-reporting of vaccine injuries is a serious issue for VAERS; estimates range from only 1% to 10% of adverse events captured. Using that range, the actual number of cases of anaphylaxis nationwide would be anywhere from 550 (20.1 per 1,000,000 doses), to 55,000 (2,000 per 1,000,000 doses). Although they are required to report all vaccine adverse events, there is no penalty to doctors who fail to report. Clearly, the post-market surveillance systems that are supposed to allow our scientists to detect upticks in vaccine injury (pharmacovigilence) do not work.

Guillan-Barré Syndrome (GBS)

The National Vaccine Compensation Program recently added GBS as a vaccine injury for which plaintiffs can be awarded compensation. GBS occurs when vaccines (or viruses) cause an autoimmune reaction against myelin proteins. These proteins act as insulation around nerves, and are essential for proper transmission of nerve impulses. GBS is not the only demyelination disease; in fact, most of the conditions that involve demyelination mostly differ in which tissue the syndrome represents (e.g., transverse myelitis (TM), multiple sclerosis (MS), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) and neuromyelitis optica (NMO).

Molecular mimicry was seen as a likely culprit way back in 1989:

“Thus, it is biologically plausible that injection of an inactivated virus, bacterium, or live attenuated virus might induce in the susceptible host an autoimmune response by deregulation of the immune response, by nonspecific activation of the T cells directed against myelin proteins, or by autoimmunity triggered by sequence similarities of proteins in the vaccine to host proteins such as those of myelin. The latter mechanism might evoke a response to a self-antigen, so-called molecular mimicry (Fujinami and Oldstone, 1989).”

Molecular mimicry due to exposure of individuals to proteins via infection by pathogens is non-controversial and widely accepted. Some examples of sequence-level similarity include the measles P3 protein and the human mylein basic protein (MBP), which shares at least 78% sequence identity:

MEASLES P3 …………………………….….EISDNLGQEGRASTSGTP….

HUM. MYLEIN BASIC PROTEIN ….EISFKLGQEGRDSRSGTP….

The likely effect of this level of sequence similarity is autoimmunity against the MBP, leading to change in the behavior of a host from mobile, and upright, to supine and sedentary – behaviors sure to elicit a social response by the host’s conspecifics, perhaps increasing the likelihood of transmission of the virus.

Some individuals are likely to more susceptible to autoimmunity due to exposure to proteins from pathogens owing to genetic variation that changes one or two amino acids in their self antigen sequence, making it more similar in sequence or in structure to the pathogen antigen.

The principles of autoimmunity from both viral infection and from vaccination have been absolutely demonstrated both in animals and in humans. McCoy et al. (2006) found that mice that were first exposed to a vaccinia virus encoding mylein protein, and then vaccinated against murine cytomegalovirus developed multiple sclerosis. In humans, cross-reactivity between MBP and a herpesvirus-6 protein has been reported (Tejada-Simon, et al. 2003). At the population level, a small increase in risk of MS and other demyelinating disorders due to vaccination (any vaccine) has been detected (Langer-Gould et al., 2014), but the authors concluded that the increased risk was real, but small.

A natural experiment in France occurred when the government brought Hepatitis B vaccination to the population. The uptake in HepB vaccine was followed by an increase in reported cases of MS to insurers (Figure 1). The government stopped purchasing the HepB vaccine, and as the remaining lots worked their way through the healthcare systems, HepB vaccine uptake declined, followed by a decline in the reported cases of MS (Figure 1). Other than a large randomized clinical trial that did not “correct for” or exclude individuals at risk of MS, this is the closest demonstration of causality between MS and vaccination that we can expect to see.

francemsFigure 1. See Le Houézec, D. 2014. Evolution of multiple sclerosis in France since the beginning of hepatitis B vaccination. Immunol Res. 2014; 60(2-3): 219–225. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4266455/

This outcome is not surprising, given the large amount of similarity shared by proteins in the HepB proteome and human neurological proteins (Ricco and Kanduc, 2010). Ample evidence exists in the form of cross-reactivity between antibodies against HepB myelin mimics and human myelin-related proteins (Bogdanos et al., 2005).

Individuals might experience varying degrees of severity of demyelination after vaccination due to genetic variation. Half of their myelin proteins and myelin oligodendrocyte glycoproteins might show low cross-reactivity because one of their parents had the canonical amino acid sequence, while the other half of their proteins might be more reactive due to genetic variation that alters the amino acid sequence in a way that increases the similarity to the pathogen’s matching peptide sequences. Further, over time, the progression and severity of demyelination could occur due to increased autoimmunity to the other version of the protein due to a process similar to bystander activation.

Aluminum Hydroxide and Autoimmunity

Vaccine risk denialists would have the public believe that the amount of aluminum in vaccines is not a threat to public health. With the exclusion of thimerosal in most pediatric vaccines came an expansion of the pediatric schedule, adding many vaccines that include aluminum hydroxide – with numerous doses.

It may surprise some, therefore, that aluminum hydroxide is routinely used in animal studies designed to model allergic rhinitis, (seasonal allergies), asthma (Elsakkar et al, 2016), food allergies (Ahren et al., 2014), autoimmunity, demyelination syndromes, and many other conditions (e.g., chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome). Many of these studies use aluminum hydroxide to induce conditions identical to mysterious diseases in humans to show the efficacy of novel treatments.

Vaccine-Induced Asthma. Some of these studies take the additional step and use (all but in name) vaccine mimics – aluminum hydroxide combined with ovalbumin. Elsakkar et al. (2016), for example, used both aluminum hydroxide and ovalalbumin to induce asthma in mice to study the effect of adalimumab (aka Humira(R)). Other studies (e.g., Brandt et al., 2006) had previously demonstrated non-specific airway allergic reactions after dietary exposures to ovalbumin following exposure to aluminum hydroxide.

Vaccine-Induce Food Allergies. Up to 200 children die from anaphylaxis due to peanut allergies each year in the US, and the cost of caring for children with food allergies is estimated to be between $25 and $31 Billion – annually. In spite of this cost, no standard medical procedures exist advising parents against feeding their children peanuts or peanut butter after vaccinations.

In fact, the opposite approach is being tried. With limited scientific studies backing, the National Institutes of Health’s has, in 2017, recommended that parents feed infants as young as 4 to 6 months peanut puree to reduce the risk of the development of peanut allergies. This is based on one clinical study – with questionable results. While the study cites a marked reduction in the rate of evidence of peanut allergy in children with other allergies, only 82.9% of the SPT-positive group who were fed peanuts made it to the outcome determination, compared to 98% of the SPT positive arm who were not fed peanuts. The difference in patient attrition (98%-82.9%) in the SPT-positive group is a whopping 15% – much, much higher than the incidence of peanut allergy in the population (estimates range from 0.4%-1.4%). The drop-out rate difference would easily swamp the actual risk due to genotype.

Studies of treatments to reduce anaphylatic reaction (e.g., Shishehbor et al., 2010) use aluminum hydroxide. It known that that the simultaneous exposure of rats and mice to aluminum hydroxide and to foods such as egg. wheat, dairy, and nuts will likely cause the development of vaccine-induced food allergies. It would be remarkable if somehow humans did not also develop autoimmunity due to the combined effects of thimerosal ERAP1 suppression and the adjuvantive effects of aluminum hydroxide.

Rheumatoid Arthritis

A case report of three cases of RA after HepB vaccination (Gross et al., 1995) provides a clue that it is likely to be caused by vaccines in some people. Other similar reports exist, but population-level studies have failed to detect an association. Mouse models of arthritis exist that employ – you guessed it – injected aluminum hydroxide. So why would epidemiologic studies of samples of patients from the general population fail to detect association of RA and vaccines?

In humans, RA risk due to variation in the HLA genotypes should be a factor considered when designing studies of risk of RA due to vaccination. No study of the effect of vaccination on RA risk on individuals with HLA genotypes of known risk to RA has been conducted. These individuals are at highest risk. Like autism, RA risk has a genetic component, but certainly involves environmental factors. Karlson et al. (2013) found that the best model that could predict risk of RA includes both genes and environment. Unfortunately, vaccination status was not studied. If RA risk is enhanced via HLA genotype, only studies of that consider HLA RA risk (high and low) and vaccination status (vaccinated vs. unvaccinated) could answer the question of association whether HLA x vaccine interaction exists.

Molecular mimicry to pathogen proteins is suspected in RA (Singh and Karrar, 2014). Cross-reactivity is observed against mycobacteria protein and human cartilage (Holoshitz et al., 1986). Antibodies reactive to bacterial enolase have also been found in patients with RA (Lundberg et al., 2008). The specific human protein to which cross-reactivity was found is the human enolase protein (aka. CEP1, Enolase 1 (ENO1) alpha enolase 5-21). Rashid et al., (2007) found elevated antibodies that are cross-reactive to Proteus microbes – as well as to antigens that are not cross-reactive – in patients with RA.

Many patients with RA show cross-reactivity with citrullinated proteins. High among the likely candidates of self-antigen sources is the human protein vimentin. It is highly plausible that prior, or simultaneous exposure to vaccines and to non-pathogenic, or mildly pathogenic bacteria would be sufficient to induce (trigger) RA in genetically susceptible individuals. Studies focused on thorough searches for cross-reactive antibodies matching both human targets in tissues – and in pathways – are required.

It is worth noting that HLA genotypes confer risk of a diversity of autoimmune conditions, and thus studies of familial risk and environmental risk would be made more powerful by combining conditions influenced by similar HLA genotypes. It is plausible that the reason why whole population studies fail to detect association may well be that the association exists for an genetically identifiable minority of individuals.

It is also worth noting that some genetic variants in the ERAP1 gene, which is down-regulated by thimerosal, are associated with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) – an autoimmune form of arthritis in which the vertebrae of the spine can become fused. Individuals with RA are removed from studies of AS (e.g., Wang et al. 2012). Variants in ERAP1 are also associated with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (Hinks e al., 2011) and psoriasis (Strange et al., 2010).

Narcolepsy

One of the best examples of vaccine-induced autoimmunity is the sporadic occurrence of narcolepsy among families in Europe following H1N1 swine flu vaccination. Narcolepsy is a debilitating disorder in which sufferers suddenly fall asleep without warning. Researchers at Stanford University suspected the target protein was orexin (aka hypocretin), a protein secreted by cells in the brain that regulate the sleep/wake cycles. Their initial successful attempts to identify cross-reactive antibodies could not be reproduced, but then a study found strong cross-reactivity to influenza nucleoprotein and a receptor of hypocretin, hypocretin receptor 2 (Ahmed et al., 2015).

The vaccine that caused narcolepsy across Europe was Pandemrix, manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. Other H1N1 flu vaccines with lower amounts of influenza nucleoprotein did not lead to narcolepsy. Incredibly, ministers in DPW in Britain fought to prevent a dozen children who developed narcolepsy due to vaccination with Pandemrix from being compensated for injury from the Vaccine Damage Payment Act. Fortunately for those individuals injured by Pandremix vaccination, the courts sided with the families.

Autism

Anti-brain protein antibodies are known to be found in children with autism (e.g., Zimmerman et al., 2007; Singer et al., 2008; Heuer et al., 2011). In 1988, a major report on pertussis and pertussis immunization (Cherry et al., 1988) reported:

“For more than 25 years, it has been known that pertussis vaccine is a reliable adjuvant for the production of experimental allergic encephalitis… This experimental allergic encephalomyelitis is mediated by sensitized lymphocytes rather than serum antibody mechanisms. Pertussis vaccine has also been used as an adjuvant in the following experimental autoimmune diseases: thyroiditis, myocarditis, glomerulonephritis, uveoretinitis, and hemolytic anemia.”

They then cited a lack of population-level association studies (i.e., no evidence) that pertussis vaccination results in these conditions in children. Gallup (2004) reminded the research community of this long-standing knowledge of the autoimmune-induced powers of DPT, citing his son’s case as an example. His son has “regressive autism and tested positive for myelin basic protein antibodies, has elevated measles antibody titers, T-cell abnormalities and colitis“.

Unless and until we study either “vaccine injured” vs. “not injured” to find biomarker signatures of moderate and serious adverse events, as was conducted with success for mild adverse events by Christian et al. (2015), or “likely susceptible” vs. “not likely susceptible” based on genetics, the study of the role of vaccines in inducing autoimmunity in humans will remain forever broken.

For now, the evidence that exists is simply overwhelming: vaccines can cause autoimmunity in some people, and we need (a) genetic screens to keep people out of harm’s way; (b) state bans on the use of unsafe peptides and epitopes in vaccines; (c) a test of Th1/Th2/Th17 balance prior to vaccination; (d) aluminum patch testing for aluminum sensitivity prior to vaccination. Consideration of HLA genotype for RA risk, or at least family history of autoimmune disorder, should be a matter of routine to reduce the likelihood of any vaccine-induced autoimmunity. The HLA-DR4 genotype is higher in frequency in autism (Lee et al., 2006).

We also need to start holding pediatricians accountable to treat all moderate and serious adverse events due to vaccination with appropriate follow-up testing, and emergent medical intervention. Failure to attend to their vaccine-injured patients should be reported as malpractice. The public does not need CDC, nor NIH, nor the AMA or AAP to acknowledge that vaccines induce autoimmunity in humans occurs to file complaints to the medical board or to their State Legislature.

NB: While completing this article, news of the publication of findings of record measurements of aluminum in the post-mortem autopsied brains of children with autism by Dr. Chris Exley’s team make a rather stunning bookend. The time has arrived for every person to let every member of the medical community know that aluminum is making us sick, and that one way or the other, they will be held responsible if they persist in their silence on the use of aluminum in vaccines. With all due respect, pediatricians, please join the Vaccine Risk Aware community in our calls for a reduction in the amount of aluminum in vaccines, a ban on thimerosal, and a ban on the use of unsafe peptides that match human proteins in vaccines.

References

Ahmed SS et al., 2015. Antibodies to influenza nucleoprotein cross-react with human hypocretin receptor 2. Sci Transl Med;7294):294ra105. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aab2354.

Bogdanos et al., 2005. A study of molecular mimicry and immunological cross-reactivity between hepatitis B surface antigen and myelin mimics. Clinical and Developmental Immunology 12:217-224.

Cherry, J.D. 1988. Report of the task force on pertussis and pertussis immunization, Pediatrics 81:6 Part 11 (June 1988) Supplement pp 936-984.

Christian, LM et al. 2015. Proinflammatory cytokine responses correspond with subjective side effects after influenza virus vaccination. Vaccine. 33(29): 3360–3366.

Gallup, R. 2004. The new MMR? No! The Old DPT http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/10/30/re-no-old-dpt

Gross et al., 1995. Arthritis after hepatitis B vaccination. Report of three cases. Scand J Rheumatol. 24(1):50-2.

Heuer L et al., 2011. Association of a MET genetic variant with autism-associated maternal autoantibodies to fetal brain proteins and cytokine expression.Transl Psychiatry. 1:e48. doi: 10.1038/tp.2011.48.

Hinks A, Martin P, Flynn E, et al. 2011. Subtype specific genetic associations for juvenile idiopathic arthritis: ERAP1 with the enthesitis related arthritis subtype and IL23R with juvenile psoriatic arthritis. Arthritis Res Ther 13:R12.

Holoshitz J, 1986. T lymphocytes of rheumatoid arthritis patients show augmented reactivity to a fraction of mycobacteria cross-reactive with cartilage. Lancet. 2(8502):305-9.

Karlson, E et al., 2013. Association of Environmental and Genetic Factors and Gene-Environment Interactions with Risk of Developing Rheumatoid Arthritis. Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 65(7): 1147–1156.

Langer-Gould A 2014. Vaccines and the risk of multiple sclerosis and other central nervous system demyelinating diseases. JAMA Neurol. 71(12):1506-13. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2014.2633.

Lee et al., 2006. HLA-DR4 in families with autism. Pediatr Neurol. 35(5):303-7.

Lundberg, K et al., 2008. Antibodies to Citrullinated a-Enolase Peptide 1 Are Specific for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Cross-React With Bacterial Enolase. Arthritis & Rheumatism 58:3009–3019

McCoy L et al., 2006. Multiple sclerosis and virus induced immune responses: autoimmunity can be primed by molecular mimicry and augmented by bystander activation. Autoimmunity. 39(1):9-19.

Rashid et al, 2007. Rheumatoid arthritis patients have elevated antibodies to cross-reactive and non cross-reactive antigens from Proteus microbes. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 25(2):259-67.

Ricco, R and D. Kanduc. 2010. Hepatitis B virus and Homo sapiens proteome-wide analysis: A profusion of viral peptide overlaps in neuron-specific human proteins. Biologics. 4: 75–81.

Rock KL et al., 2010. Proteases in MHC class I presentation and cross-presentation. J Immunol. 184(1):9-15. doi: 10.4049/jimmunol.0903399.

Singer HS et al., 2008. Antibodies against fetal brain in sera of mothers with autistic children. J Neuroimmunol. 194:165–172.

Singh A, Karrar S. 2014. The role of intracellular organisms in the pathogenesis of inflammatory arthritis. Int J Inflam. 2014:158793. doi: 10.1155/2014/158793.

Strange A, Capon F, Spencer CC, et al. 2010. A genome-wide association study identifies new psoriasis susceptibility loci and an interaction between HLA-C and ERAP1. Nat Genet 2010;42:985–90.

Tejada-Simon MV et al., 2003. Cross-reactivity with myelin basic protein and human herpesvirus-6 in multiple sclerosis. Ann Neurol. 53(2):189-97.

Wang, C-M et al., 2012. ERAP1 genetic variations associated with HLA-B27 interaction and disease severity of syndesmophytes formation in Taiwanese ankylosing spondylitis Arthritis Research & Therapy 201214:R125

Zimmerman AW et al., 2007. Maternal antibrain antibodies in autism. Brain Behav Immun. 21(3):351-7. Epub 2006 Oct 6.

Dr. Lyons-Weiler is a research scientist and author of three books, the latest of which is “The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism”. He is available for speaking engagements and book signing events at your location. To contact, follow on twitter @lifebiomedguru, email ebolapromo[at]gmail.com, and connect via LinkedIn https://www.linkedin.com/in/jameslyonsweiler

Ahern – Flawed Lyme Policies, Diagnostics, and Treatment

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/flawed-science-behind-current-global-lyme-policies-huib-kraaijeveld/?trackingId=iZBLIQ9YmOUSF0PTHRijww%3D%3D

The flawed science behind the current global Lyme policies, diagnostics and treatment

Written by

The flawed science behind the current global Lyme policies, diagnostics and treatment

Holly Ahern is a professor of microbiology as well as the mother of a child that was severely affected by Lyme Disease. Because of this personal experience and her professional background and training, she was able to dissect the flaws in scientific reasoning that underlie decades of wrong policies, invalid diagnostics and treatment that fail too many. An interview with a mother who went deep into the (anti)scientific Rabbit Hole of the Lyme science.

 

Can you introduce yourself and share how did you got personally involved with Lyme disease? 

I am a professor of microbiology at SUNY Adirondack, which is a small State University of New York college located at the southern end of a 6.1 million acre state forest preserve known as the Adirondack Park. Prior to 2009, my program of undergraduate research focused mostly on environmental microbiology with an emphasis on small lake ecosystems, of which we have many here in the Adirondack region.

In 2009, my youngest daughter was a freshman in college and excelling both academically and athletically. In her first year, she had broken college records in her sport (swimming) and had just qualified as All-American in her first NCAA Nationals. Within a month of those achievements, she called to say she wasn’t feeling well and wanted to come home for the weekend. She went to bed that night, and didn’t get up again to fully return to her life for almost a year.

It was early spring when she got sick. There were no ticks to be seen, she did not have any kind of rash anywhere, and her physician never considered that her illness could be a tick-borne disease. She was referred to a rheumatologist (because she had profound joint and muscle pain), a cardiologist (because she had tachycardia and pain in her chest), and a neurologist (because she was having debilitating headaches, was constantly dizzy and had pain, tingling and on several occasions complete numbness and paralysis of her right arm and leg). After several rounds of blood tests, a CT scan, and a couple of MRI’s, there was still no diagnosis.

Then, in May, my husband attended a presentation at the school where he works given by one of his colleagues. The topic was Lyme disease, and after listening to the presentation and talking further with the presenter, he felt that our daughter’s condition could be related to Lyme disease.

We requested a blood test for Lyme disease, to which her physician reluctantly acquiesced. We were all surprised when it came back positive, and I remember at the time how relieved we all felt because at last, there was a diagnosis. Little did we know…

When the prescribed oral antibiotic was completed and she immediately relapsed, I realized that what I — as a microbiologist — thought I knew about this disease from textbooks and the CDC was wrong. So I started reading the scientific literature, and quickly realized that the dominant medical view of Lyme disease being a bacterial infection that was “hard to catch and easy to cure” was profoundly wrong, that the bacteria and the disease symptoms it caused were not like other bacterial illnesses, and that the CDC-recommended approach to diagnosis and treatment of this disease lagged well behind the science.

My struggles to pull my daughter out from under the weight of the chronic disease that had consumed her, made me realize that her experience mirrored that of hundreds of thousands of other people who were also being gaslighted by their physicians and marginalized by public health agencies. As my daughter’s condition improved, my attention turned first to educating the public about the dangers of ticks and the diseases they carry, followed by governmental advocacy to change the outdated and harmful health care policies of the CDC.

Along the way, I co-founded a 501-c-3 organization called Lyme Action Network, and now also serve as scientific advisor for two other organizations; Project Lyme which focuses on educating the public about ticks and tick-borne disease, and for the Focus On Lyme Foundation, which is raising funds for research toward better diagnostic tests and treatment for tick-borne diseases.

Focus On Lyme is also working to address one of the most significant roadblocks to scientific research on tick-borne diseases in humans, which is the lack of a readily accessible, no strings attached, biorepository of well-characterized human blood samples.

I (and many others) have come to realize that the path forward to accurate diagnostic tests and effective treatments will have to come from those who are most affected by the disease, through patient-centered (and often funded) projects such as this, because there is little to no leadership coming from governmental agencies on this issue.

You recently gave a testimony at the senate commission hearing of the State of New York and you gave a lecture at the Focus On Lyme 2017 conference about the science backing up Lyme and co-infections. What have you discovered?  Can you summarize your strong criticism of the mainstream assumptions surrounding Lyme in a way that everybody can understand?

Over the past 5 years, I believe it is safe to say I have read most if not all of the published science on borreliosis (the broad name for diseases caused by bacteria in the Borrelia genus).

It is very important for people to realize that when they hear medical or public health professionals proclaim that the medical guidelines dictating the practice of medicine and insurance reimbursement for Lyme disease are based on the best available science, such assertions are rhetorical hyperbole and little else.

The mainstream approach to medical practice for Lyme disease is currently guided by a relatively small number of clinical studies which are overly focused on one feature of this very protean disease – the appearance of a “bulls-eye” rash after a tick bite.

From 1977-1980, a team at Yale University headed by Alan Steere “discovered” and then defined a new disease, which he initially called Lyme arthritis. Steere noted in his early publications that approximately 25% of the people in his study cohorts had a very unique clinical feature – a rash called an erythema migrans or EM which resembles a bulls-eye – that sometimes accompanied other non-specific but debilitating symptoms (joint/muscle pain, headaches, peripheral nerve pain and sensations, fatigue).

As a newly minted “Epidemiology Fellow” of the CDC, he had been trained to look for clinical signs associated with disease symptoms, which could be “objectively” observed by a physician without relying on “subjective” reports by patients about what aches and pains they might be having. The unusual skin rash was just such a perfect, pathognomonic, feature.

Having noted and associated this unique rash with patients showing a similar cluster of subjective symptoms, his next studies set out to investigate the association of the rash with the disease. Steere’s subsequent studies were DESIGNED to CONFIRM what he wanted to be true – that the EM was a clinical sign of this new disease – as opposed to designing studies to impartially study the occurrence of the rash in people with the cluster of symptoms typical of people with Lyme disease. This is an example of a notable type of research bias, referred to as confirmation bias.

Steere also overemphasized the significance of joint swelling as a clinical sign of “Lyme arthritis,” because he was, after all, a rheumatologist, and therefore pain in a joint that was swollen could be taken as a “sign” of a disease process. Joint pain without obvious swelling was considered a nonspecific symptom that did not point to anything in particular.

The 1980s came along and New York decided that maybe they should look into this “new” disease since Long Island shares a body of water with Connecticut. SUNY Stony Brook on Long Island had a research team looking at ticks and diseases, so in 1982, the NYS Department of Health launched a study to find out just how many cases of this new disease there were in New York, to decide if the State should consider whether a public health response was needed.

The design of this study was for the Department of Health to alert New York State health care providers, through newsletter publications and also by sending letters to 300 primary care physicians, about the new disease and provide them with specific and detailed information and pictures about what to look for FIRST — a unique rash shaped like a perfect bulls-eye.

The letters directed health care providers to fill out a form for each patient seeking medical care for (in order of emphasis): a rash with a bulls-eye appearance; aseptic meningitis; facial paralysis (Bell’s Palsy); or large joint arthritis with swelling.

The inherent bias in the design of this research is obvious. The study directed a naïve population to be on the lookout for a new disease hallmarked by a specific type of rash shaped like a bulls-eye.

So what do you think got noticed by the physicians who participated in this study – the patients walking in the door with a bulls-eye rash, or the ones complaining about fatigue or headaches or pain in their non-swollen joints?

Before this investigation of the “Epidemiological Features of Lyme Disease in New York, the rate of association between an EM rash and Lyme disease symptoms ranged from 25-40%, as gleaned from a review of the published research from this period. In the New York study, 77% of the case reports were about people who exhibited an EM rash.

The perceived authority of this one study, published 33 years ago in 1984, serves as the ANCHOR for the misconception currently advanced by the CDC and other public health agencies, that 70-80% of the people who get Lyme disease will show a bulls-eye rash as a clear clinical sign.

Even though this assertion has been REPEATEDLY and REPRODUCIBLY shown to be false (with the true rate of association between and a bulls-eye shaped rash and a diagnosis of Lyme disease being only 10-40%), anchor bias perpetuates the myth that most people get an EM rash as a sign of “early” Lyme disease.

The bad news for patients is that since at least the late 1990s, the medical guidelines for diagnosing and treating Lyme disease patients have been based on clinical trials heavily influenced by this strong and pervasive anchor bias. Every research study that investigated the clinical course of Lyme disease in humans since the late 1970, used the appearance of a bull’s-eye rash as the main criteria for either inclusion in the study, or as an end point of the study.

Which means that all of the clinical research done to date has EXCLUDED from study 60-90% of people who actually have Lyme disease.

And even worse – a search of the NIH-funded clinical trials currently in the pipeline for Lyme disease returns with 20 studies currently enrolling or inviting participants. The “Inclusion Criteria” (to be eligible as a participant in the study) for these studies requires that a person must either meet the CDC case definition for Lyme disease, or meet the criteria set forth in the clinical practice guidelines developed by the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which are in practice one and the same. Briefly, those criteria are 1) the bulls-eye rash; and/or 2) “laboratory evidence” of infection.

“Laboratory evidence” is another way of saying “diagnostic test.” Diagnostic tests that would serve as laboratory evidence of an infectious disease like Lyme disease, either show direct evidence of infection with the bacteria causing the disease (such as growing the bacteria in culture or detecting their DNA or proteins in a blood sample), or indirectly demonstrate a past or present infection by measuring antibodies specific for the disease-causing agent in a person’s blood.

This latter method, called serology, is currently the ONLY type of laboratory testing recommended by the CDC for diagnosing a case of Lyme disease – even though serology has been REPEATEDLY and REPRODUCIBLY shown to be very inaccurate with a high rate of false negative tests (serology is falsely negative in 1 out of every 2 tests). A research paper just published takes it one step further and shows that serology is next to useless in persons who received antibiotic treatment before the test was done.

Ironically, a quote from the CDC website states: “Before CDC will recommend new tests, their performance must be demonstrated to be equal to or better than the results of the existing procedure, and they must be FDA approved.”

The explicit use of the term “FDA approved” by the CDC is interesting, because currently there are NO FDA APPROVED tests for Lyme disease, and that INCLUDES the serological tests the CDC recommends. Serology has been CLEARED by the FDA for marketing as a medical device, based on it being “substantially equivalent” to something already being marketed, which is, in essence serology itself, since serology was and is the only test in routine use across the globe.

FDA APPROVAL requires more than just a comparison to the existing standard, it requires additional evidence of the test’s safety and effectiveness. Serology, compared only to itself, has never actually gone through the FDA approval process.

This and other rhetorical twists of the existing science by the CDC has severely limited the use of any other test that could serve as “laboratory evidence” of Lyme disease, particularly ones which rely on the direct observation (such as culture or microscopic examination) or detection of biomolecules (such as DNA or RNA). Which is illogical, because direct detection of the microbe or molecules from it should yield no false positives, and therefore a person showing this type of laboratory evidence could be correctly diagnosed and treated.

What all this means is that we actually know next to nothing about the true nature of disease in persons infected with Borrelia or tick-borne coinfections, in the majority of persons who actually have Lyme disease. And if the status quo is maintained, we won’t be learning anything new from NIH-funded research on Lyme disease for the next 20 years.

If it was up to you to create an action plan for Lyme disease, what would you do? 

My action plan would start by making Lyme disease a national (and international) research priority, to the same extent that AIDS was prioritized in the 1980s. Given that there are annually more than 6 times the number of cases of Lyme disease as there are HIV/AIDS, with Lyme disease patients often experiencing a higher level of disability, this elevation in status is clearly warranted.

There are three areas related to tick-borne diseases that desperately need more research: diagnostics, treatment, and prevention. I would argue that diagnostics should be the first priority, because at this moment we are overly reliant on 40+ year old tests that are supposed to detect antibodies against a bacterium that can successfully “hide” from and even alter how and what types of antibodies are produced during an immune response to infection. There is currently no real way to differentiate between past or recent exposure to Borrelia in these tests, and no way to track the efficacy of treatments.

Once we have a way to directly detect infection – and I believe we are close to achieving that goal with several methods, including professor Laane’s work on a simple, direct method to detect the Borrelia with microscopy, direct detection of antigens, DNA sequencing, or nucleic acids from all tick-borne microbes – then it would be possible to reassess the existing dogma about the human course of this disease through well-designed, unbiased, hypothesis-driven research. Eva Sapi as another scientist using advanced microscopic methods for detection. This is the article describing her work on skin tissues.

The foundational research already exists – on bacteria grown in culture, and in animal models ranging from mice to dogs to non-human primates. Some of that research (new antibiotic dosing strategies, existing drugs with superior efficacy over the antibiotics currently medical guidelines recommend) is ready to advance to human clinical trials and only awaits funding.

Historically, research on preventing Lyme disease in humans has focused on vaccines and most recently, on a pre-exposure prophylactic (PrEP) that would render Borrelia burgdorferi incapable of causing an infection. The problem with this singular approach is that someone who is vaccinated or receives PrEP would NOT be protected against infection by other tick-borne microbes (such as other species of Borrelia, or Babesia, Bartonella, or Anaplasma) that also cause human diseases.

Existing research shows potential for a vaccine to prevent ticks from staying attached or transmitting microbes, and that type of vaccine deserves significantly more research attention, because it would reduce the human risk of acquiring any tick-borne disease, not just Lyme disease.

I would also argue that additional research is warranted to investigate other potential routes of transmission for the microbes labelled “tick-borne.” In the United States, CDC disease surveillance data reveals that Lyme disease is not just the “fastest growing vector borne disease,” it is the SECOND MOST COMMON infectious disease period, with only sexually-transmitted chlamydia causing more cases of disease per year. Gonorrhea comes in third.

Since there is scientific evidence of congenital transmission of Borrelia and research suggesting that sexual transmission occurs as well, it seems likely that Lyme disease is not all that “hard to catch” after all.

Professor Holly Ahern

Interviewer: Huib Kraaijeveld

About On Lyme

We focus to share stories that matter on this website. You can sign up for the On Lyme Newsletter to receive updates on new publications.

If you want to support our work, your donation is highly appreciated.

 

 

Christmas Came Early – Gary Wormser Off Lyme Panel

https://www.lymedisease.org/voices-heard-wormser-off-panel/

Your voice has been heard–Wormser is off the federal Lyme panel

pT5858Bac

If you go to the US Department of Health and Human Services website, you’ll see a beautiful thing. Dr. Gary Wormser’s name has been removed from the list of members of the Tick-Borne Diseases Working Group.

We await word from HHS about who may be named to replace him. Presumably that will come this week, since the group’s first meeting in Washington DC is scheduled for Monday, December 11.

Thanks to more than 10,000 people who have signed our petition in the last few days. LymeDisease.org protested Wormser’s participation, because of his flagrant financial conflicts of interest.

This just in:  https://www.lymedisease.org/wormser-declined-invitation/

The US Department of Health and Human Services today gave us a statement regarding Dr. Gary Wormser’s position on the federal Tick-Borne Diseases Working Group. According to an HHS spokesperson:

“Dr. Gary Wormser has declined the invitation to serve on the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group. A nominee will be selected to replace him from the list of highly qualified persons whose names had been previously submitted in response to the public call for nominations. It is unlikely that this selection will be made and finalized before the December 11 meeting.”

The first indication the Lyme community had of the change was when Wormser’s name disappeared from the HHS website’s listing of Working Group members.

Wormser’s exit from the panel follows a wide-spread outcry from the Lyme community regarding his appointment. Many people and organizations, including LymeDisease.org, lodged protests with HHS.

A petition calling specifically for Wormser’s removal from the group was launched last Friday by LymeDisease.org.

 

 

Bought – Documentary on Pharma, Vaccines, & GMOs

The truth about vaccines and Big Pharma, and info on GMO foods

Bought, according to Dr. Mercola, reveals: “Forced vaccinations are part and parcel of this larger scheme where industries write the rules and profit from public health policies, such as recommendations for universal use of all federally recommended vaccines and state mandatory vaccination laws that restrict or eliminate vaccine exemptions.”

People opting out of the flu vaccine are losing their jobs.  What’s behind this draconian measure?  Why, it’s Money of course.

“The goal of officials at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is to achieve a 90 percent health care worker vaccination rate by 2020,22 and a key strategy for meeting this goal is to tie a health care facility’s employee flu vaccination rate to the facility’s Medicare and Medicaid reimbursements from the federal government.23

In other words, health care facilities participating in the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Inpatient Prospective Payment System Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting Program that fail to meet a 90 percent employee flu vaccination rate now get reimbursed 2 percent LESS from Medicare and Medicaid.

This is a drop in funding that can translate into hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.24 This loss of federal funding, far more so than any concern for patient welfare, is a more likely explanation for why hospitals are now choosing to fire essential medical personnel refusing a flu shot rather than allow them to simply wear a mask during flu season, as was done in the past.

So, who came up with this strategy? A key ‘mastermind’ behind the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, abbreviated as ACA, but colloquially known as Obamacare, was Elizabeth Fowler, chief health policy counsel to the Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, Max Baucus. Evidence suggests Fowler drafted the entire legislation.25,26

As reported by The Guardian in 2012, before joining Baucus’ office, Fowler was vice president for public policy and external affairs at WellPoint, the largest health insurance provider in the U.S. ‘Watch the five-minute Bill Moyers report from 2009 …  on the key role played in all of this by Liz Fowler and the ‘revolving door’ between the health insurance/lobbying industry and government officials at the time this bill was written and passed,’ The Guardian wrote.27”  

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/12/05/mandatory-influenza-vaccinations.aspx?utm_source=dnl&utm_medium=email&utm_content=art1&utm_campaign=20171205Z1_UCM&et_cid=DM175374&et_rid=142884544

______________

Being informed about vaccines is everyone’s right; however, those infected with Lyme/MSIDS need to be even more vigilant, informed, and proactive as their bodies are in a war of epic proportions which translates to a messed up immune system.  Since the mechanism of vaccines is to illicit an immune response, this helps explain how in an infected person, vaccines themselves can trigger latent infections as discussed by this Scottish doctor:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/12/02/scottish-doctor-gives-insight-on-lyme-msids/ and here as well:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/04/24/gardasil-and-bartonella/  Asymptomatic girls after receiving Gardasil activated dormant Bartonella which was confirmed by testing.

Microbiologist Judy Mikovitz also blew the whistle on retroviruses contaminating vaccines:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/10/15/vaccines-and-retroviruses-a-whistleblower-reveals-what-the-government-is-hiding/

For the basics on how vaccines work:  http://pathwaystofamilywellness.org/Informed-Choice/how-do-vaccines-work-immune-mechanisms-and-consequences.html

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2015/06/19/a-word-on-vaccines/

How vaccines are made:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/04/06/video-how-vaccines-are-made/

For highlighted notes on a 9-part documentary on vaccines which includes many types of vaccines:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/03/30/ty-bollinger-the-truth-about-vaccines-series/

Don’t be fooled.  The push for vaccines has far more to do with money than science.

Image

Save the Date – 3rd Rocky Mountain TBD Forum in May

SaveTheDate2018