Archive for the ‘research’ Category

After These Young People Died, Postmortems Found an Unnerving Parasite Link

After These Young People Died, Postmortems Found an Unnerving Parasite Link

04 September 2026

ByEsra Öz

After These Young People Died, Postmortems Found an Unnerving Parasite Link (Breitschwerdt et al., Parasites & Vectors, 2026, CC BY 4.0.)

He had been athletic and healthy. Then came years of exhaustion, pain, memory problems, and psychiatric symptoms. Eventually, he had to leave college.

By the time the 27-year-old died, six years of illness and specialist care had failed to restore his health.

Tests performed after his death revealed DNA from two species of Babesia, tiny parasites that infect red blood cells, and Bartonella henselae, the bacterium that causes cat-scratch disease.

His was one of six cases in a postmortem investigation driven by families still seeking answers about their children’s illnesses.

Researchers confirmed DNA from one or both groups of microbes in five individuals.

The discovery left a crucial question unanswered: what role, if any, had these infections played in their illnesses?

The individuals were aged 14 to 30, and all had experienced chronic illness and suicidal thoughts or behaviors.

Four died by suicide, one through medical assistance in dying, and another from a severe disorder involving excessive immune activation.

Their parents contacted Edward Breitschwerdt, an infectious disease researcher at North Carolina State University, after learning about his team’s work on Bartonella and neurological illness. (See link for article)

_________________

**Comment**

This is the perfect article to follow up on the research on ‘PTLDS’ as it wonderfully shows how these pathogens are hard to find let alone effectively treat but are causing needless suicides and unbelievable suffering, due to an old faulty dogma that refuses to go away.

Important excerpt:

“They supplied medical histories and arranged for postmortem samples to reach his laboratory. Some had already been tested or treated for these infections while alive. The investigation was therefore not the first indication of infection in every case. At the laboratory, the initial search returned no clear answers. The researchers analyzed 125 DNA extracts from blood, laboratory blood cultures, tissues, and other body fluids. Initial quantitative PCR screening, which searches for selected genetic sequences, was negative throughout. Digital PCR, which divides samples into many tiny reactions, then produced faint signals in some samples. None reached the study’s threshold for a positive result. Additional targeted tests and DNA sequencing, which reads genetic material to identify organisms, provided confirmation.”

These poor folks would have been ignored by most researchers after the PCR screening, but Bart guru, Dr. Ed Breitschwerdt, is no dummy and kept digging. Notice they did additional ‘targeted’ tests AND DNA sequencing. Mainstream research simply quits looking after using tests that are wrong nearly 90% of the time.

In response to the question of whether the DNA points to an active infection at the time of death, Breitschwerdt said that detecting a known pathogen’s DNA in clinical specimens is medically accepted as evidence of “active infection.

Yet – for some reason, this ‘medically accepted’ evidence does NOT hold true for Lyme/MSIDS. It’s the perfect quagmire with no end in sight.

While this was an ‘observational study’, not a prospective case-controlled study, Breitschwerdt states:

“I think the best interpretation is that infections with vector-borne pathogens that have evolved to induce persistent infections in animals and human patients are not a current diagnostic consideration in patients with chronic illnesses or neuropsychiatric symptoms.”

For more:

Category:

Babesia, Bartonella, Inflammation, Lyme, Psychological Aspects, research, Testing

Designing Studies For Post-Treatment Lyme Disease and Other Infection-Associated Chronic Illnesses

https://academic.oup.com/brain/article/149/6/1842/8586348

Designing studies for post-treatment Lyme disease and other infection-associated chronic illnesses 

Paul M Arnaboldi, Jacqueline Becker, Avindra Nath, Patricia K Coyle, Andrew Handel, Timothy J Sellati, Maria Gomes-Solecki, Sandra Garcet, Marianne K Henderson, Piper Mullins,… Show more

Brain, Volume 149, Issue 6, June 2026, Pages 1842–1859, https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awag016

Published: 18 May 2026

Abstract

Infection-associated chronic illnesses (IACIs) encompass a spectrum of poorly understood syndromes often marked by significant neurologic and multisystem symptoms following an infectious event.

This review focuses on several diseases representative of the IACI spectrum. These are post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS), long COVID, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and multiple sclerosis (MS). Their clinical and biological complexity, combined with a lack of clear diagnostic criteria and objective available laboratory biomarkers, makes them difficult to distinguish from conditions with overlapping features. This presents challenges for research studies, as well as diagnosis and clinical management. This diagnostic ambiguity, coupled with heterogeneous patient presentations, has led to challenges in research, including misclassification of study participants and inconsistent or irreproducible findings. Some PTLDS research exemplifies these issues, which also extend to other IACIs.

To advance the field, we highlight key methodological refinements and approaches for studying IACIs, including rigorous participant selection, standardized sample collection protocols, and the use of appropriate control groups, including those with microbiologic proof of the initial infection when known and technologically feasible. We also address broader influences on research quality, such as stigma, historical neglect, and the urgency to find treatments, which have contributed to the proliferation of poorly controlled studies and questionable practices. Drawing lessons from past challenges, we propose a path forward grounded in fit-for-purpose methodological rigor to improve scientific understanding and support evidence-based therapeutic development for IACIs. (See link for full article)

________________

**Comment**

I’m not going to do a full write up of this, but am simply going to point out an error right away in paragraph two which states, “antibiotic therapy is effective for clearing the bacterium.” For years research has shown that this is simply not the case with a subset of patients. There are numerous reasons for this including the involvement of coinfections antibiotics won’t touch, and using an ineffective antibiotic, for the wrong duration of time as research has shown many of these pathogens have the ability to sequester in tissues in a dormant state when threatened by treatment only to reemerge later when conditions are favorable. Again, for a vast majority of patients who are infected with multiple pathogens simultaneously, an antiquated and ineffective CDC monotherapy simply will not and can not work.

As I’ve written previously, I take issue with the accepted post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS) moniker since the ‘post treatment’ is based upon the entirely false premise that 10 days of doxycycline ‘cures’ Lyme disease. This tenet has been proven false again and again yet is regurgitated as an unquestionable rule. All you have to do is look around and see thousands still suffering after this supposed ‘gold standard’ therapy.

The authors also state that ‘Chronic Lyme Disease’ (CLD) is ‘used by some to describe individuals with a vague array of symptoms, frequently lacking documentation of exposure to Bb.

So, in paragraph two they already tip their hand that they are simply old school players who buy the clap-trap that Lyme is simple to identify, prove, and treat when everyone and their dog knows this belief belongs in the same category as pixie dust. A test that can be wrong nearly 90% of the time is no test that should be taken seriously by anyone. Diagnosis remains a ‘clinical’ one and anyone who says other wise is an ostrich with their head in the sand.

Important excerpt:

“In this review, we focus on and refer to PTLDS using criteria proposed and generally accepted by most academic and government agencies.4,9-11 Individuals with PTLDS had laboratory and clinically supported evidence of B. burgdorferi infection. They received appropriate early antibiotic therapy9,12 and continued to have or develop new symptoms within 6 months of infection that lasted for a period of at least 6 months, resulting in impaired or declining function.”

This is all I need to know. They will find nothing of value for sick patients. Zip. Nadda.

Until the world wakes up to the uniqueness of this complex illness, we simply circle the drain.

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research

Unresolved Issue of Misidentified Viral Particles For COVID Still Exists

https://jonfleetwood.substack.com/p/top-medical-journals-label-images?

Top Medical Journals Label Images of Human Cell Structures as ‘Coronavirus’—‘Misidentified Viral Particles Are Used by Others to Verify the Presence of Viral Particles’: CDC

Years after CDC microscopists documented the misidentifications, the papers remain, raising questions about the evidence used to establish SARS-CoV-2’s physical presence in the human body.

Jon Fleetwood

Sep 08, 2026

Top medical journals published images of ordinary human cellular structures labeled as “coronavirus,” according to a 2021 review authored by Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientists and collaborators titled “Difficulties in Differentiating Coronaviruses from Subcellular Structures in Human Tissues by Electron Microscopy.”

The researchers examined 27 reports that used electron microscopy to identify coronavirus directly in human tissue and found that 23 contained cellular structures misidentified as virus.

“In each case of erroneously identified coronavirus particles,” they wrote, “the structures mistaken for virus are common cellular organelles.”

More than five years later, several of the papers remain published without corrections withdrawing the disputed electron-microscope identifications, including studies claiming direct SARS-CoV-2 infection of the kidney, liver, heart, intestine, and other organs.

The development raises questions about how much of the historical record describing the purported virus’s physical presence and morphology rests on images that were never uniquely identifying. (See link for article and images)

______________

**Comment**

This is a BIG deal. If everything is built upon false/fraudulent data the entire COVID house of cards falls down. This is true in the case of ‘vaccines’ as well as many other issues.

For more:

Category:

Activism, research, Viruses

Direct vs. Indirect Testing in Chronic Infections: Why it Matters

https://www.restorativemedcenter.com/blogs/direct-vs-indirect-testing-for-infections-cracking-the-case-of-the-missing-microbes

Published on March 14, 2025

If you’ve ever attempted to get to the bottom of a suspected chronic infection, you’ve likely encountered the ongoing debate between direct and indirect testing. Understanding the distinction isn’t just academic—it’s critical to making accurate diagnoses and effective treatment decisions.

Both methods can provide valuable information, but they operate at different levels of biological evidence. Direct testing seeks to identify the pathogen itself, while indirect testing detects your immune system’s response to it. Knowing which to prioritize—and when—can mean the difference between clarity and ongoing uncertainty.

Direct Testing: Identifying the Pathogen Itself

Direct testing aims to detect the actual presence of a pathogen in the body—whether that’s microbial DNA, RNA, proteins, or intact organisms. It offers the highest level of diagnostic confirmation, and is typically preferred when making treatment decisions, as it confirms that the organism is currently present.

Common direct methods include:

  • PCR (Polymerase Chain Reaction):
    This technique amplifies microbial DNA to detectable levels, making it highly specific and sensitive, especially when an infection is active.
    PCR is available through a variety of labs, including the DNA Connexions Lyme Panel, which uses a urine sample to test for DNA from Borrelia, Babesia, Bartonella, Ehrlichia, and other vector-borne pathogens.
    PCR may still miss infections if the microbes are hidden in tissue or biofilms and not shedding into the sampled fluid at the time of collection.
  • Culture:
    Considered the gold standard in conventional infectious disease medicine because it allows for isolation and identification of live organisms. However, culturing vector-borne infections (VBIs) like Bartonella, Borrelia, and Babesia is notoriously difficult.
    These organisms are often slow-growing, intracellular, or biofilm-forming, which makes them hard to culture using standard techniques.
    This culturing difficulty is a major reason why many infectious disease specialists struggle to validate or diagnose chronic forms of these infections—they simply don’t grow well using the gold standard method.
  • FISH (Fluorescent In-Situ Hybridization):
    FISH testing uses fluorescent probes that bind to the genetic material of specific pathogens, allowing for direct visualization under a microscope.
    It is especially useful for detecting organisms in blood smears, even when present in low quantities.
    IGeneX offers FISH testing for both Bartonella and Babesia, providing an important tool for clinicians dealing with suspected chronic infections.
    Like PCR, FISH confirms active presence of the organism—but may also be limited by where and when the pathogen is present in the body.

Indirect Testing: Measuring the Host Response

Indirect testing evaluates immune system responses rather than looking for the pathogen itself. These tests infer the presence of an infection based on patterns of immune activation or memory, and can be helpful when direct detection methods are inconclusive.

Common indirect methods include:

  • Antibody Testing (IgM, IgG, IgA): Measures immune memory and recent immune responses. Interpretation can be complex due to persistent antibody elevation or cross-reactivity.
  • T-Cell Response Assays (e.g., Elispot): Measure cell-mediated immune activity, often reflecting an ongoing immune response not captured by antibodies alone.
  • Cytokine Panels & Inflammatory Biomarkers: These offer insight into generalized immune activation but are nonspecific.

The main limitation with indirect testing is that it cannot definitively confirm the presence of a pathogen—only that the immune system has responded to it at some point. This makes it vulnerable to both false positives (from past exposures, autoimmunity, or cross-reactivity) and false negatives (due to immunosuppression or immune exhaustion).

Why Direct Testing Is Clinically Preferred

In my clinical experience, when high-quality direct testing is available, it consistently provides the most actionable data. Direct evidence of a pathogen’s presence allows for more targeted and confident treatment decisions.

Indirect testing can be helpful—especially in cases where no clear pathogen is identified—but it is ultimately a secondary measure, best used to support or contextualize findings rather than as a standalone diagnostic tool.

I’ve seen numerous cases where indirect tests were falsely positive or falsely negative compared to reliable direct testing. In some situations, indirect markers suggested a strong immune response to an infection that was no longer present, leading to unnecessary or prolonged treatment. In other cases, indirect tests missed active infections entirely due to immune dysfunction or suppression. (See link for article)

________________

**Comment**

And yet, indirect testing remains the accepted testing for all tick-borne illness despite being abysmal.

In fact, there’s been a concerted effort to suppress direct testing. This, is the first red flag one experiences in Lymeland. Why would public health ‘authorities’ suppress an accurate test? And yet, here we are.

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing

Pfizer’s Lyme Vaccine Just Cleared EU Review. Is the Stock Already Priced In?

https://www.tikr.com/blog/pfizers-lyme-vaccine-just-cleared-eu-review-is-the-stock-already-priced-in

Pfizer’s Lyme Vaccine Just Cleared EU Review. Is the Stock Already Priced In?

Gian Estrada•6 minute read

Reviewed by:David Hanson

Last updated Aug 17, 2026

MerinoPhotos and Max Mishin from Pexels

Key Takeaways for Pfizer Stock as of August 2026

  • Lyme Validation: The European Medicines Agency validated the marketing application for Pfizer and partner Valneva’s Lyme disease vaccine candidate PF-07307405 on August 14, starting the formal EU review with a possible US filing later this year.
  • Street Split: Pfizer stock carries 8 buys, 2 outperforms, 16 holds, 1 underperform, and 1 sell among 26 analysts, with a $29 mean target sitting 7% above the $27 close.
  • Model Gap: TIKR pegs Pfizer stock at $29 by 2030, a 9% return.
  • Insider Buying: CEO Albert Bourla bought $1.0M of stock at $26.34 in mid-August while director Mortimer Buckley added $960K at $25.52 days earlier, two of the largest insider purchases logged this year.

Pfizer Stock’s Lyme Vaccine Just Cleared Its First EU Hurdle

Pfizer (PFE) stock’s Lyme disease vaccine program took a real step forward on August 14, when the European Medicines Agency validated the marketing authorization application for candidate PF-07307405, developed with French vaccine maker Valneva. Validation starts the formal EU review clock. It doesn’t guarantee approval, but it confirms the dossier is complete enough for regulators to evaluate.

The filing rests on Phase 3 VALOR data showing more than 70% efficacy in people aged five and older, with no safety concerns identified. Valneva shares jumped 15.6% on the news, its best single-day move since August 2025. Kempen analysts called the Lyme program “the key” driver of the investment case and flagged a possible US filing from Pfizer in the second half of 2026, with a US approval decision potentially landing in the second half of 2027. (See link for article)

_______________

**Comment**

If you haven’t felt the vibe yet, I’ll clue you in: it’s all about money. Nothing whatsoever to do with health.

When it comes to ‘vaccines,’ never expect a straight, transparent answer. Just don’t. Then, you won’t be disappointed.

‘Vaccines’ are by far the biggest cash cow for Big Pharma. Just read the article & learn that Pfizer’s own CEO bought $1.0M of stock at $26.34 in mid-August while director Mortimer Buckley added $960K at $25.52 days earlier, two of the largest insider purchases logged this year. This should be illegal.

Further, you can’t create a ‘vaccine’ for a chronic/relapsing illness, which is often complicated by numerous coinfections, none of which are in the vaccine, – which is exactly what Lyme/MSIDS is, despite public health ‘authorities’ and bought out researchers claims. It’s also created with the very same OspA protein which caused people that took the Lymerix vaccine to develop debilitating chronic Lyme symptoms. The claim that it was removed due to ‘lack of demand,’ only tells part of the story. Nobody wanted an injection that made them sick!

For a refresher course on the Lyme vaccine:

Category:

Activism, Lyme, research, vaccines