NIH and CDC should dismantle barriers to proper Lyme treatment
Mira Shapiro gave the following public comment at the November 21 meeting of the federal Tick-Borne Disease Working Group.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Mira Shapiro. I am a chronic Lyme disease patient, biostatistician, and real world data specialist.
While attending ILADS as a patient several years ago, I was fortunate to learn about Lyme Disease.org and their MyLymeData patient registry. Since that time I have been working on projects using MyLymeData and have seen from our research results that I am not alone in my struggle with chronic Lyme disease.
Like many other patients, it took me more than 20 years to get an accurate diagnosis of my Lyme disease and co-infections. In that time, when I was misdiagnosed and dismissed by physicians, my symptoms escalated and interfered with my career progression, my family life, and overall quality of life.
As a scientist, I persisted and was eventually properly diagnosed. Had I not been able to do so, since my condition progressed to central nervous system involvement, I firmly believe I would be in a wheelchair or might not have survived.
I also had the resources for the cost for treatment that was not covered by insurance. I don’t consider myself well, but managed my condition as best I can. I wish I had been diagnosed at an earlier stage and avoided this lifelong debilitating chronic condition.
I consider myself lucky–not every Lyme patient has the knowledge or financial resources to fight this battle. You don’t have to look too far to read countless accounts of individuals who have been misdiagnosed with other conditions, and struggle to get an accurate diagnosis and the care they need for Lyme disease and other tick borne co-infections.
Although there are in excess of 400,000 new cases of Lyme disease annually, and most likely more, it is a disadvantaged disease from a research perspective. The last NIH treatment trials were conducted more than 25 years ago. Patients can’t wait for research to catch up.
The IDSA has essentially abandoned patients with chronic Lyme disease. Patients are disabled with chronic Lyme disease and many of them can’t work. It is unreasonable to interfere with patients’ ability to get treatment or leave them with no treatment options.
We need to recognize the fact that some patients are being treated by educated and dedicated Lyme Literate MDs. The NIH and CDC should not be putting up obstacles that interfere with patients getting the treatment and support they need to improve their health and quality of life. It’s about time we use all the scientific and medical resources available to put patients first and help them fight this battle.
Watch a video of Mira delivering her remarks in the top link.
________________
**Comment**
Unfortunately Lyme/MSIDS patients like Mira, who are even scientists, are unaware or refuse to take into account that the fact the NIH and CDC are corrupt organizations who have done nothing to help chronically infected patients in over 40 years. That’s a long time to do nothing. In fact, what they have done only furtherhurts these patients. A perfect recent example of this is the futility of attempting to work for six years at the federal level with the Tick-borne Disease Working Group (TBDWG). Hello?
Asking the CDC and NIH to dismantle barriers to proper treatment is exactly like asking the wolf to feed the baby chickens. Ain’t gonna happen.
The sooner we wake up and realize we are never going to receive help from these agencies, the better. We need to quit crawling in bed with the enemy, fund and do our own independent research. It’s the only forward progress we’ve ever made.
We know it’s been a challenging year for many people with Lyme, and we want to help our community wrap up 2022 on the best possible note. If you’re dealing with Lyme disease, coinfections, or another overlapping illness, you probably still have questions.
So what can we help you with? What’s been left unanswered?
Bring us those questions, and Dr. Bill Rawls will help you find as many answers as possible duringour last LIVE Q&A webinar of the year, Ask Dr. Rawls: Lyme Disease 2022 Wrap-Up.
Dr. Rawls is the author of the bestselling book, Unlocking Lyme, and he knows firsthand what it’s like to struggle with chronic Lyme disease because his life was interrupted by it. In his journey to overcome it, Dr. Rawls explored countless treatments – from conventional medicine to a range of alternative therapies — until he finally discovered what worked.
Since his recovery more than a decade ago, Dr. Rawls has helped thousands of patients find their path to healing from Lyme disease and coinfections. Now, he’d like to help you.
So, bring your questions for this LIVE Q&A.PLUS: Don’t miss an exclusive gift for those who attend the live webinar.
LymeX prize competition announces ten Phase 1 winners
Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH, United States
NOV 30, 2022 —
Please see the following letter sent to all winners of the LymeX prize…
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “contact@steveandalex.org” <contact@steveandalex.org> Cc: The Tick-Borne Disease Working group and all winners of the LymeX prize
Date: 11/30/2022 1:12 PM
Subject: LymeX prize competition announces ten Phase 1 winners
“The ultimate goal of the multiphase competition is to nurture the development of diagnostics toward Food and Drug Administration review.”
To all winners of the Phase 1 LymeX Diagnostics Prize competition,
After spending the last thirteen years studying the mishandling of Lyme disease, I felt compelled to share the following facts (and supporting documentation) regarding prior attempts to introduce “new and/or improved” diagnostic detection methods. I concluded that a chronic relapsing seronegative disease does not fit the business model of vaccine development, patent royalties and pharmaceutical profits so laboratory confirmation of persistent infection after antibiotic treatment must be squelched/suppressed at all costs.
Examples
1. Culture: Advanced Laboratory Services
Barbara J.B. Johnson, microbiologist with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention claimed laboratory contamination in reference to positive test results (Chronic Lyme) found in Advanced Laboratory Services’ Borrellia culture test. If this is the case, why didn’t the CDC work with Advanced Laboratory Services to perfect its culture test and resolve the so-called “contamination” issues?
“Dr. Nelson emphasized that for Lyme disease diagnosis, the CDC recommends a 2-step process of serologic testing: first, an FDA-cleared enzyme immunoassay, followed in immunoassay-positive or equivocal cases by confirmatory Western blot. Only patients positive on both tests are considered to have Lyme disease.”
Carl Tuttle’s comment: Current FDA approved Lyme disease tests (Antibody tests) cannot be used to gauge treatment failure or success which makes them ideal for concealing an antibiotic resistant/tolerant superbug allowing the thirty-year-old dogma to remain intact.
2. PCR testing:
We have seen similar actions from the CDC with PCR testing as well. In May of 2012 the CDC announced the Development of a Novel Genus-specific Real-time PCR Assay for Detection and Differentiation of Bartonella Species and Genotypes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22378904
Here the CDC is using PCR for a definitive diagnosis of Bartonella however, according to the CDC and the ALDF group on June 11, 2012 PCR cannot be used for Lyme diagnosis per the CDC expert commentary posted on Medscape below:
Quotes from Christa Nelson: (Medical Officer in the Bacterial Diseases Branch of CDC’s Division of Vector-Borne Disease)
“Is PCR useful for the diagnosis of Lyme disease? In general, the answer is no.”
“Two-tiered serology remains the mainstay of laboratory testing for Lyme disease.”
Carl Tuttle’s comment: PCR is acceptable for Bartonella but not Lyme disease. Double standard here?
3. Nested PCR and DNA sequencing: Milford Molecular Diagnostics
In September of 2012 the CDC entered into an agreement with Dr. Sin Lee to evaluate the viability of his DNA sequencing technology. Martin E. Schriefer, Ph.D., the chief of the CDC’s diagnostic and reference laboratory, stated the following: (from the attached court document) https://www.dropbox.com/s/8irsb6oqunwy3zq/Notice%20of%20Appeal.pdf?dl=0
“So wherever possible we encouraged and required other non-serologic-based tests in addition to clinical presentation so that might have included PCR or culture or both. . . . And again I’m looking forward to seeing a greater utilization of PCR as a diagnostic tool in the future.” -Martin E. Schriefer, Ph.D.
When Dr. Lee published a case of persistent infection (Chronic Lyme disease) in 2014 all communication with the CDC ended abruptly with no explanation.
Carl Tuttle’s Comment: It should be noted that the chronic Lyme disease case identified in this publication was found in blind-coded serum samples sent to Dr. Lee’s laboratory from the CDC’s Lyme disease serum repository and other species of Borrelia were found within these samples using DNA sequencing; the CDC had no idea that multiple pathogens were involved.
Has the CDC purposely discredited other innovative technologies which are in competition to the invention being patented by Theresa M. Russell and Barbara J.B. Johnson of the NCEZID under Pub. No. WO 2013110026 A1 entitled “Compositions and methods relating to Lyme disease”?
Dr. Lee although participated in the competition, was not awarded the LymeX prize. Does anyone believe that this decision was just a coincidence?
“The current standard blood test for Lyme disease exposes the infection only after antibodies have accumulated to detectable levels, which can take up to 4 to 6 weeks. If patients exhibit a telltale bull’s-eye rash, diagnosis and treatment can begin earlier. But the rash does not occur in 20 to 30 percent of Lyme disease patients, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Rather than waiting for an infected person’s immune system to produce noticeable amounts of antibodies, the team chose to home in on the bacteria itself—specifically, proteins the bug sheds when attacked by the body’s defenses.
“From many candidates, we chose one that is both easily distinguished from human serum proteins and an unambiguous indicator of the bacteria,” Turko says. “This protein, which resides on the outer surface of membranes, became the target of our search in serum samples.”
Carl Tuttle’s comment: Response from Dr Illarion Turko; “This project did not receive further development and is on-hold for now.”
So, who at the CDC got to Dr. Turko and discouraged further development?
Other examples of interference/intimidation
In 2008 Nordin Zeidner published his study regarding single dose Doxycycline for tick bite. Pamela Weintraub interviewed Zeidner for her book:
Cure Unknown (Revised Edition): Inside the Lyme Epidemic
“Immunologist Nordin Zeidner, chief of the CDC’s Vector-Host laboratory in Fort Collins, Colorado, told me internal agency studies had found the strategy questionable, and definitely ineffective in mice.”
“With the support of his CDC colleagues, Zeidner had begun to work with industry to develop an alternative: a form of injectable Doxy that could be sustained in the body for nineteen days.”
“Trying his formulation on mice, Zeidner found that 100 percent were protected from Lyme as well as the coinfection, anaplasmosis.”
“…..single dose doxy stopped Lyme disease not in 87% of mice, but rather, in 20 to 30 percent at most.”
_____________________________
Dr Gary Wormser of New York Medical College (who has controlled the Lyme disease narrative for the past three decades) published a study earlier promoting the use of single dose Doxy for tick bite. (See Wormser’s 2001 flawed NEJM article)
I understand that it was Wormser who called Zeidner’s superiors at the CDC to put an end to Zeidner’s work. Zeidner was told to discard the mice sera instead of testing for antibodies as he had promised.
Zeidner’s research was terminated for “lack of industrial support” Mead, and he was promoted, and his email address inactivated. The CDC stopped his research and sent him to Europe
I have attached Zeidner’s 2008 study for your review:
Are all of you confident that the current pandemic was handled properly by our Public Health Officials? Was diagnostic testing controlled/manipulated in any way? Have lifesaving therapies been suppressed over pharmaceutical profits (vaccines)?
I ask the competition winners to be suspect of HHS oversight for this LymeX prize competition and if any dishonest/suspicious activity is experienced as described previously in this letter, please seek early legal counsel, (perhaps collectively) and involve your state senators to expose the ongoing corruption hell bent at maintaining the false thirty-year Lyme disease narrative: “Lyme is Hard to Catch and Easily Treated” (with a 2-4wk antibiotic treatment mandated by the Infectious Diseases Society of America)
Respectfully submitted,
Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH
Cc: All LymeX prize competition winners, All members of the 2022 Tick-Borne Disease Working Group, the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation
More examples of interference/manipulation as reported through the experience of a clinician on the front lines:
2018 ILADS Webinar – History of Lyme Disease by Joseph J. Burrascano, Jr. MD. (Video Recording) https://vimeo.com/306846706 Summary:
Joseph Burrascano, MD’s cogent history of Lyme: East Hampton, Long Island NY had the highest rate of Lyme in the world. 1965 internist Sidney Robin coined the term “Montauk Knee”.
1985 87 seronegative patients all had spirochetes produced using Alan McDonald’s culture technique. “Seronegativity is real”
@7:00 re: PTLDS – “There’s never, ever, ever been a description of this Post Lyme Syndrome from an immunological point of view that clarifies what it is and applies to every single patient”.
@9.05 Stony Brook study of 21 day doxycycline “… had a 100% FAILURE RATE… THEY KICKED ME OUT OF THE STUDY AFTER THAT; AND THEY NEVER REPORTED THOSE RESULTS.”
@9.35 Patient Evaluation: “I took advantage of Dr. McDonald’s culture… after treatment ended, if you waited a few weeks, they [patients] were all culture positive. It was failed treatment and a persistence of the infection.”
@12.45 Late 1980’s “Rocephin came onto the scene… 100% failure rate of 2 weeks of Rocephin, even at high dose… Duration of treatment is really, really what’s important.” Findings presented @ 1990 Stockholm International Conference.
@13.50 633 patient records reviewed indicated at least 4 months treatment for those “with multiple bites, Lyme arthritis, heart murmurs, hormonally active women, those sick for more than 1 year, age over 60, acute carditis, documented immune deficiency, failed oral treatment.”
@26.50 Discovered on lecture circuit Dr. Ed Masters from MO, John Druhl, NJ & Paul Levy, San Francisco all independently concluded higher doses and longer treatment necessary. They’d never met or communicated previously.
1990 NIH Gold Stain – 73 chronic patients, 13.5 months mean treatments. Discovered blebs and biofilms.
@31.19 “So, whatever happened to this great gold stain? Know what? Nothing. NIH stopped the funding… closed the whole thing down and never again did they ask front line Lyme doctors to contribute specimens to their studies. So, there’s some politics one more time.”
@32.58 Co infections seem to affect only chronic Lyme patients.
@34.19 Lyme is the thing that takes over the immune system, weakens our defenses….
@36.52 Lyme is an immune suppressive illness….
@38.25 McDonald presented cultures at “… a meeting of NYS Medical Society… detractors were people from Yale and Stony Brook who didn’t want their patented serologic tests to be usurped, and they started claiming that McDonald was falsifying his data and so forth.”
[Real Talk] Lyme Disease + Cancer: Does Borrelia Increase Your Cancer Risk?
by Dr. Bill Rawls
Posted 11/5/20
As to the question of, are microbes associated with cancer, the answer is a definitive, yes!
But what about the question, are all cancers associated with microbes? Here I’m referring to microscopic organisms including bacteria, viruses, protozoa, and fungi.
The answer? Well…maybe.
Here’s what the science is showing us thus far, including takeaways from a new study implicating borrelia — the microbe associated with Lyme disease — in breast cancer development, and how to empower yourself to reduce your risk.
The Science Linking Microbes + Cancer
Scientists first began proposing links between microbes and cancer back in the 1800s. In 1886, a researcher named Dr. Doyle isolated spherical bodies thought to be bacteria from a malignant tumor.
This was followed by a scientific paper published in 1907 by Dudgeon & Dunkley, which confirmed that the spherical bodies were a species of staphylococcus (a common skin flora that we all carry). Then, in 1911, a physician named Peyton Rouse, M.D. was able to demonstrate that a certain chicken sarcoma (tumors that occur in bones and soft tissue) was transmissible to other chickens. The transmissible agent was later found to be a virus.
Subscribe to our Facebook and YouTube to get updates when new episodes are posted.
The earliest documentation of microbes associated with human cancer was in 1964 with the finding of Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) in a cancer of lymph nodes, called Burkitt’s lymphoma. Epstein-Barr virus is a common virus that most all of us get during childhood and that sometimes causes mononucleosis.
Since then, numerous cancers have been linked to microbes:
Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) with cancer of the stomach
A variety of species of mycoplasma with a variety of different cancers
Multiple bacteria with oral cancers
This is, of course, only a partial list. In all, 20% of cancers have been directly linked to various microbes. No doubt, the percentage will steadily grow.
My earliest professional association with the microbe-cancer link was some 30 years ago, when human papillomavirus (HPV) was associated with cervical cancer in women. It totally changed how we screen for cervical cancer.
Women often, however, develop a precancerous state associated with HPV called dysplasia, which in some people never progresses to cancer. It has me wondering if there might be other cofactors involved, such as other microbes.
Ones that would be high on my list include mycoplasmas and ureaplasmas, which are much more common in the genital tract than currently recognized. Studies have shown that these bacteria can facilitate the entry of viruses into cells — it gives evidence that microbes often work together.
The microbe-cancer connection hit close to home several years ago when my father developed lymphoma of the eye shortly after being diagnosed with a toxoplasma infection in that eye. Toxoplasma is a protozoa, a single-celled microbe one step more advanced than a bacteria. It’s commonly contracted from cats or eating undercooked meat.
If a person’s immune system is healthy, toxoplasma typically lives inside cells and stays dormant in tissues without causing any symptoms. Its favorite hideout is the brain. In immunocompromised individuals, it’s been linked to cognitive deficits, depression, and psychosis. Sure enough, I was able to find research that documented an association between toxoplasma and the specific type of lymphoma my father developed.
Ever since my dad’s experience, I’ve been closely following the connections. Before his untimely death due to complications of Lyme disease, Neil Spector, M.D., a friend and oncology researcher at Duke University, mentioned that he was consistently finding bartonella, a common bacteria defined as a Lyme disease coinfection, in a certain type of breast cancer.
In May of 2020, in a study published in the journal Science, researchers found a distinct “tumor microbiome” consisting of intracellular bacteria in each of 1,526 different tumor specimens. The specimens were taken from seven different cancer types including breast, lung, ovarian, pancreatic, melanoma, bone, and brain cancers.
Most recently, an internationally recognized expert on Lyme disease, Eva Sapi, Ph.D., foundborrelia in breast cancer tissue. In 400 specimens of the breast cancer tissue she examined, borrelia was found in a high percentage. Her team also found that borrelia readily invaded breast cancer cells in the lab.
Does this mean that borrelia is the cause of breast cancer? Not hardly. It simply means that microbes in general play a key role in the process of cancer formation. That role is actually not difficult to define.
Microbes’ Role in Cancer Development
The cells that make up our bodies and the microbes that inhabit our bodies live at cross purposes. It’s the difference between the unrestricted growth of microbes versus the restricted growth of our cells.
Microbes like bacteria know only one purpose: Making more bacteria. As long as food is present, bacteria are compelled to keep dividing and growing with no boundaries — dividing continuously is the only way they can survive.
The reason microbes like bacteria must continually divide is to shed internal damage and refresh themselves. When a bacterial cell divides, it regenerates into two new cells — damage to internal parts and the cell’s genetic program is shed, and the new cells start afresh. As soon as those two cells mature, they must also divide.
Most bacteria divide every 2 to 12 hours. Some are especially fast movers: E. coli in the gut, for example, can divide every 20 minutes, which means after 7 hours, one bacterium can become 2.1 million, according to the Microbiology Society.
This pattern of unrestricted growth applies to viruses, protozoa, and yeast, as well as bacteria. As long as nutrients and no other restrictions are present, they will continue to grow unimpeded.
In contrast, our cells are team players. They work in close synchrony with other cells within organ and tissue systems to enable the body to function as a whole.
We have about 200 different cell types, each with a different job. Muscle cells contract muscles. Brain cells transmit signals. Thyroid cells secrete thyroid hormones. Cells in the digestive system make enzymes to digest food. Every cell in the body is working for the good of all the other cells in the body — it’s definitely a one-for-all and all-for-one kind of arrangement.
As team players, our cells must work within the confines of an organ or tissue system. To be functional, organ or tissue systems can only accommodate a set number of cells (aka team players).
Though our cells can divide, they only divide to replace worn out or damaged cells. If the growth of cells became unrestricted like bacteria, the tissue or organ would quickly be destroyed. If that sounds a lot like cancer, you’re right on track.
Why Intracellular Microbes Are the Biggest Concern
Though most of the microbes that inhabit the body are confined to the gut or skin, microbes are constantly trying to get inside tissues of your body. The carbohydrates, fats, and proteins that make up your cells offer a treasure trove of nutrients that microbes can use to survive. Once inside your tissues, your cells offer an exceptionally good food source.
It was through my own experience with Lyme disease that I became acquainted with microbes that specialize in invading and living inside cells of a host. It’s a common strategy that microbes have been honing for billions of years.
By infecting and pirating organic molecules and resources from larger cells (the ultimate dine-in experience), these microbes can survive without having to work very hard. Living inside another cell offers the microbes food and protection from the immune system, other bacteria, and antibiotics.
The infected cell might be weakened, but might not die — at least initially. It’s an easy-living strategy used by many bacteria, some protozoa, yeast, and all viruses. Collectively, they are known as intracellular microbes or stealth microbes.
Borrelia burgdorferi is an intracellular microbe. All the Lyme disease coinfections, including bartonella, are intracellular. Toxoplasma is an intracellular protozoa. In fact, all the microbes that have been associated with cancer are intracellular.
There are many, many intracellular microbes. In my research I was able to identify more than 100 different species of intracellular microbes that could potentially be associated with chronic illness in humans — and that may be just scratching the surface.
The stealth microbe-cancer connection was taken a step further by a study published in 2018 in the journal, Cancer Cell International. The study was significant because researchers were able to experimentally induce cancer formation in eukaryotic cells (cells like ours) with intracellular bacteria.
For the experiment, they used a species of algae. They started by placing the algae cells in the dark, which weakened the cells. Then they exposed the weakened algae cells to an intracellular bacteria common to that species of algae.
In every case, when the bacteria invaded the weakened cells, the cells took on the unrestricted growth common to bacteria and turned to cancer. They were also able to demonstrate that the bacteria had inserted a segment of DNA into the cell’s genome that turned on unrestricted growth in the host cell.
How to Use This Information to Reduce Your Cancer Risk
The good news is that all of these findings bring us one step closer to understanding cancer. And if you understand something, you can do something about it! Knowing that intracellular microbes are a significant part of the problem brings us closer to a cancer solution.
A top priority is keeping the cells of your body healthy — weak cells are targets for microbes. Maintaining cell health puts less stress on the immune system. When the immune system isn’t overtaxed, it can better do its job of keeping the microbes that inhabit the body in check.
What can you do to keep your cells in top condition?
Provide optimal nourishment for your cells with a diet weighted heavily toward fresh vegetables and other fresh food sources.
Minimize your exposure to toxic substances. Toxins can only enter your body in what you eat or drink, the air you breathe, and what goes on your skin. Filtered water, organic food, purified indoor air, and smart choices for skin products go a long way to protect your cells.
Stress disrupts hormones and prevents cells from working together to stay healthy. Though you can’t eliminate all stress in your life, you can find ways to live around it. Make your world small, and focus only on the things that impact your wellbeing directly.
Cells depend on continual flow of water, nutrients, oxygen, and waste removal to stay healthy. Staying physically active increases blood flow, which flushes debris collected around cells and promotes optimal flow.
In the battle to keep your cells healthy, herbs are your best ally. The protective phytochemicals found in herbs suppress intracellular microbes, reduce cellular stress by protecting cells, and balance communication systems in the body so that all cells work together. Many herbs, if not most of them, have documented anti-cancer properties.
It’s a bit unnerving when you think about the fact that we all harbor microbes inside our cells that have the potential to affect our cells adversely. It’s important to note, however, that it’s stressed cells that are vulnerable.
Also key is that a healthy immune system is constantly on the job of taking out cells that have been infected with microbes or that have taken on the unrestricted growth associated with cancer. As such, your best defense against any type of cancer is a healthy immune system. Not stressing your cells is also a good practice.
Keeping your cells and your immune system healthy is a matter of maintaining good health habits. That includes eating a fresh and mostly whole foods diet, minimizing the toxins in your environment, keeping stress down, and staying active.
Beyond good health habits, herbs have extensive value for keeping your immune system healthy. Herbs suppress intracellular microbes, reduce cellular stress by protecting cells, and balance communication systems in the body so that all cells work together.
When all the cells in the body are functioning properly and working together in harmony, good health happens — and cancer risk is low!
Dr. Rawls is a physician who overcame Lyme disease through natural herbal therapy. You can learn more about Lyme disease in Dr. Rawls’ new best selling book, Unlocking Lyme. You can also learn about Dr. Rawls’ personal journey in overcoming Lyme disease and fibromyalgia in his popular blog post, My Chronic Lyme Journey.
REFERENCES
1. Dudgeon LS, Dunkley EV. The Micrococcus neoformans: Its Cultural Characters and Pathogenicity and the Results of the Estimation of the Opsonic and Agglutinative Properties of the Serum of Patients Suffering from Malignant Disease on this Organism and on the Staphylococcus Albus. J Hyg (Lond). 1907;7(1):13-21. doi:10.1017/s002217240003309x
2. Rous P. A SARCOMA OF THE FOWL TRANSMISSIBLE BY AN AGENT SEPARABLE FROM THE TUMOR CELLS. J Exp Med. 1911;13(4):397-411. doi:10.1084/jem.13.4.397
3. Rowe M, Fitzsimmons L, Bell AI. Epstein-Barr virus and Burkitt lymphoma. Chin J Cancer. 2014;33(12):609-619. doi:10.5732/cjc.014.10190
4. Nejman D, Livyatan I, Fuks G, et al. The human tumor microbiome is composed of tumor type-specific intracellular bacteria. Science. 2020;368(6494):973‐980. doi:10.1126/science.aay9189
5. Dong, Q., Xing, X. Cancer cells arise from bacteria. Cancer Cell Int 18, 205 (2018).
6. Faden AA. The potential role of microbes in oncogenesis with particular emphasis on oral cancer. Saudi Med J. 2016;37(6):607-612. doi:10.15537/Smj.2016.6.14048
7. Hieken TJ, Chen J, Hoskin TL, Walther-Antonio M, Johnson S, Ramaker S, Xiao J, Radisky DC, Knutson KL, Kalari KR, Yao JZ, Baddour LM, Chia N, Degnim AC. The Microbiome of Aseptically Collected Human Breast Tissue in Benign and Malignant Disease. Sci Rep. 2016 Aug 3;6:30751. doi: 10.1038/srep30751. PMID: 27485780; PMCID: PMC4971513.
8. Meng S, Chen B, Yang J, Wang J, Zhu D, Meng Q, Zhang L. Study of Microbiomes in Aseptically Collected Samples of Human Breast Tissue Using Needle Biopsy and the Potential Role of in situ Tissue Microbiomes for Promoting Malignancy. Front Oncol. 2018 Aug 17;8:318. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2018.00318. PMID: 30175072; PMCID: PMC6107834.
9. Chmiel R, University of New Haven Professor Makes Great Strides in Lyme Disease, Cancer Research, Sept 15 2020, Office of Marketing and Communications, University of New Haven. https://www.newhaven.edu/news/blog/2020/eva-sapi-research.php
___________________
For more:
SAPI2022AONM_221203_013821 Go here for Eva Sapi’s slides titled, “Potential Connection of Borrelia Infection and Breast Cancer“. She also addresses “Mixed Biofilm in Other Infected Skin Tissues.” There is a particular slide that shows where in the human body that Borrelia biofilm is found.
Broadway star’s secret battle with neurological Lyme disease
Nov. 18, 2022
Ashley Loren, who stars in “Moulin Rouge! The Musical” on Broadway, says she has suffered from neurological Lyme disease since she was in grammar school.
“My childhood was spent pretty sick,” she said in an interview with PEOPLE.
“I had headaches all the time. I was nauseous. I was vomiting. All of my elementary-school life, every day driving to school, we would have to pull over, and I had to throw up. I was on antibiotics for 10 years.”
She told PEOPLE that she survived that tough childhood by pretending to be somebody else—which led to her career in acting.
Unfortunately, while performing in “Moulin Rouge,” she contracted COVID twice. According to her doctors, that led to reactivation of Lyme disease in her body and brought on other problems.
She had to take a leave of absence from the Broadway production, but now she has returned to the stage.
She said she’s back on antibiotics and on the road to recovery.
To learn more about Ashley’s acting career and her Lyme disease experience, I encourage you to read the article in PEOPLE.
