https://www.lymedisease.org/2019-mylymedata-highlights.pdf?
All sorts of nifty graphs and charts on patients taking part in the project. If you haven’t added your information yet, go here to do so: https://www.mylymedata.org/
For more: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/05/02/mylymedata-2019-report/
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0817/8/3/117/htm
Pathogens 2019, 8(3), 117; https://doi.org/10.3390/pathogens8030117
Recently these two articles essentially found divergent outcomes. This article shows Babesia is widespread in Canada https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/12/11/babesia-widespread-in-canada-its-high-tolerance-to-therapy/, while this one states it’s rare: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/08/21/prevalence-of-babesia-in-canadian-blood-donors-june-october-2018/
Yet, if I am reading this properly, they only used one test. If a sample was reactive, only then did they test it further – kind of like using 2-tiered testing for Lyme when you only move onto the Western Blot IF you test positive first using the Elisa. So these patient samples were tested only once at the beginning to determine who had reactive samples to Babesia.
This testing discrepancy that differs from reality is true for all tick-borne diseases and practitioners need to become educated in this fact as well as understand the importance of symptomology to determine a clinical diagnosis. The continued stubbornness of utilizing poor testing to weed out people in the beginning is foolish. It only seems logical to cast a wider net in the beginning rather than a narrower one. Everyone knows testing is abysmal, yet it’s followed like the Pied Piper to the doom of patients.
https://www.hhs.gov/ash/advisory-committees/tickbornedisease/meetings/2019-9-12/index.html
The tenth meeting of the Tick-borne Disease Working Group will be from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. ET. For this meeting, the Working Group will receive reports from the eight subcommittees that were formed during the June 4, 2019, meeting and continue to focus on plans to develop the next report to the HHS Secretary and Congress on federal tick-borne activities and research, taking into consideration the 2018 report.
Federal Register Meeting Announcement
We encourage you to register 
for the meeting.
Members of the public can attend the meeting via webcast. Instructions for attending this virtual meeting will be posted prior to the meeting.
Public Comment – Information and Instructions
The public will have an opportunity to present their views to the Working Group during the meeting’s public comment session or by submitting their views in writing.
Verbal comments:
Written comments (posted on this webpage and accessible to the public):
The letter in the link above was written by microbiologist Tom Grier, who is director of pathology studies for the Dr. Paul H. Duray Pathology Fellowship.
In it, he explains why Lyme disease is so confusing, what the medical experts got wrong, and the following untrue facts have been disseminated by the IDSA, CC, NIH, Yale, Harvard, SUNY, and Mayo Clinics for decades:
Here’s 700 references demonstrating pathogen persistence: Peer-Reviewed Evidence of Persistence of Lyme:MSIDS copy
Here is documentation proving the conflicts of interests: ConflictReport
Grier’s letter takes on exactly what I was referring to when I wrote my comment about this article: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/08/24/its-time-to-get-serious-about-tick-borne-diseases/ If we are truly going to “get serious” about this pandemic, then we need to be concerned about what type of research is being funded. Right now there is a Pied Piper pushing a climate change agenda with research. Current tick research has already proven it a mute point and has even revealed faulty, biased research pushing an ideology that doesn’t pan out: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/06/17/ontario-public-health-officials-called-out-on-shoddy-biased-research-utilizing-an-erroneous-climate-change-model-to-program-a-futuristic-tick-problem/ This type of research is diverting dollars from neglected areas that demand answers such as accurate testing and diagnostics as well as transmission studies and effective treatments.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/its-time-to-get-serious-about-tick-borne-diseases/
By Mary Beth Pfeiffer on
In the article in the above link, the author compares the treatment of Lyme/MSIDS patients with how those with AIDS were treated in the 80’s. She notes that patients with tick-borne diseases are dismissed similarly to how AIDS patients were, and are labeled anti-science, and are summarily denied insurance reimbursement. The author also compares the fact there are over 11,500 studies on AIDS compared to the 55 for Lyme.
She then aptly points out:
Unfortunately, the author erroneously states that the lone star tick has migrated due to the climate warming; however, research has shown warmer winters are actually lethal to ticks and that ticks are extremely eco-adaptive and equipped for survival: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/08/13/study-shows-lyme-not-propelled-by-climate-change/
Independent research has shown that birds and photoperiod are behind the movement of ticks: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/11/07/ticks-on-the-move-due-to-migrating-birds-and-photoperiod-not-climate-change/ This fact demonstrates why tropical ticks are found in Canada and Canadian ticks are found in the topics. They didn’t walk here because the weather was nicer.
I think we would disagree; however, on how research dollars should be spent. If we are to truly “get serious,” we need to admit that the statically paltry research dollars need to go toward issues that directly affect patient well-being. I say, “NO MORE” funding on climate data which has not and will not help suffering Lyme/MSIDS patients. We need to start over with a blank slate. This complex illness is NOT what we’ve been told it is. There is much indicating it’s a STD, is spread congenitally, and potentially by other insects. We still don’t have accurate testing that picks up ALL pathogens involved. We still don’t have adequate treatment. And, we still don’t have a means of paying for treatment. There are so many other important issues that haven’t been addressed in over 40 years when the initial outbreak happened.
