Archive for the ‘research’ Category

Chronic Lyme Disease & Insurance: Why Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

https://www.lymedisease.org/chronic-lyme-disease-insurance/

Chronic Lyme Disease and Insurance: Why Patients Can’t Get the Care They Need

By Lyme Policy Wonk

Previous studies have shown that patients who have persistent or chronic Lyme disease (PLD/ CLD) have a hard time obtaining the medical care they need to get well (Johnson 2011). A new study has found that clinicians who treat this population face significant challenges in providing patients care that is local, timely, and affordable (Johnson 2022).

Between September 23 and December 1, 2021, LymeDisease.org conducted a survey of U.S. clinicians who treat PLD/CLD patients. One hundred and fifty-five clinicians from 30 states responded to the survey and 45 provided comments in the open text survey item. The results of this survey were published this week: Access to Care in Lyme Disease: Clinician Barriers to Providing Care. The primary goal of this survey was to identify the difficulties that clinicians face when caring for patients with PLD/CLD.

The CDC estimates that 476,000 cases of Lyme disease occur annually (Kugeler 2021). Even when diagnosed and treated early, up to 44% of patients fail treatment, with only 56% considered to have returned to health (Aucott 2022). In later disease, treatment failure rates are higher. Lyme disease patients who remain ill after antibiotic treatment are regarded as having persistent or chronic Lyme disease. These patients may have been diagnosed early or late.

Chronic Lyme disease definition

Clinicians who treat PLD/CLD

Clinicians treating patients with PLD/CLD have developed significant clinical expertise. Most clinicians (55%) are  medical doctors (MD) or doctors of osteopathy (DO); the remainder are naturopaths with prescription privileges (15%), nurse practitioners (12%) or physician assistants (6%).

Over half of the clinicians (56%) have treated more than 500 patients and 38% have treated more than 1000 patients. Most (57%) dedicate more than half of their practice treating Lyme disease. Almost all (98%) have taken continued medical education for Lyme disease treatment. Eighty-nine percent belong to the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) and most belong to other medical societies as well.

How many patients have you treated with Lyme disease?

Why Clinicians Who Treat Chronic Lyme Disease Find it Difficult to Provide Care

Despite their considerable expertise, clinicians report that providing care to PLD/CLD patients is challenging. In particular, the complexity of the care provided and the time it takes to provide that care make it difficult for clinicians to provide care using the traditional insurance-based healthcare model. This increases the cost of care provided to patients and makes it difficult for patients to pay for the care that can be given.

Why treating Lyme disease is hard

The complexity of care needed requires longer clinician visits than treatment for other conditions. For example, 25% of clinicians said their first consultations took more than two hours, and 44% said their follow-up visits took between one and two hours.

Clinicians reported that the length of healthcare visits for PLD/CLD coupled with the additional insurance administrative burdens and reimbursement payment issues make it hard for care to be given under a traditional insurance-based model, which typically relies on clinicians seeing a high volume of patients for short office visits. As one clinician explained:

“The most difficult problem is the cost of providing this amount of complex care on a cash basis. To really review hundreds of records, spend time with the patient and do a proper workup, takes hours. I’d like to see more support for patients and clinicians who choose to help this set of patients.”

As a result of these challenges, most PLD/CLD providers do not accept insurance:

  • 74% do not participate in insurance networks
  • 76% do not directly bill insurers
  • 77% do not participate in Medicare, Medicaid, or other government supported plans

Another reason the insurance model of providing care does not work for PLD/CLD is that the risk of legal or regulatory action by medical boards, insurance companies, and other organizations is heightened for clinicians who accept insurance. Three-quarters of the clinicians who answered the survey say that they have been professionally stigmatized. More than a third (39%) report that they have been threatened with actions by medical boards, insurance companies, or hospital quality improvement committees.

One clinician commented:

“While my patients are generally very supportive, some of my colleagues have stopped speaking to me and I worry about the medico-legal repercussions of what I do.”

39 percent reported to medical board

Another said:

“I used to practice in a state where physicians who treat complex patients, including people with chronic Lyme, were specifically targeted by health insurance companies for medical board complaints and other attacks ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY HELPED PATIENTS OTHER DOCTORS GAVE UP ON. Eventually I elected to move to [a state] where there is less interruption of care and more protection of vulnerable patients from predatory insurance entities.”

One way clinicians can avoid targeting by insurance companies and other groups is by opting out of insurance networks, Medicare, and Medicaid. Clinicians who are stigmatized or don’t participate in insurance networks have fewer chances to share office space and overhead costs. This increases the cost of providing care. Treating PLD/CLD also imposed additional insurance related burdens that increase the cost of providing care exist even for clinicians who do not participate in insurance networks. These include prior authorization of medications (77%), insurance denials (71%), and other insurance-related problems (49%).

When clinicians do not participate in insurance networks, the economic burden of shouldering the cost of care is shifted to patients. This makes care more expensive for patients who have to pay for care out-of-pocket. It doesn’t come as a surprise then that 75% of clinicians say that a central problem in their practice is the patients’ inability to pay out of pocket costs. One clinician commented:

“I knew that at some point I would be forced to stop taking insurance and move forward on a cash pay only basis. Looking at the numbers, taking commercial insurance for these patients just doesn’t make any sense. I believe that the main issue that causes many of these patients to be without access to care is the amount they need to spend on their practitioners plus the out of pocket costs for out of network testing, labs, and treatment. For most of these patients that is anywhere from $10 to $20K per year. It is a huge burden.”

Essentially, the insurance model of providing healthcare is broken for patients with PLD/CLD. Not only does this increase the costs of providing care for providers and shift the cost burden to patients, it also means that patients can’t get care from their regular provider, must obtain care from places that don’t take their insurance, and need to navigate a complex healthcare maze to even find the care they need. Patient surveys published previously also identify the high cost of out-of-pocket care (Johnson 2011).

In addition, previous surveys have found that patients incur substantial diagnostic delays, misdiagnosis, see many clinicians before being diagnosed, and travel significant distances to receive care (Johnson 2011, 2014, 2020). To obtain care, 49% of patients report traveling more than 50 miles; 31% report traveling 100 miles or more for care (Johnson 2011). Because obtaining care can be expensive, inconvenient, and interfere with work responsibilities, many patients may choose not to get care at all (Johnson 2022).

Clinicians here reported that patients with PLD/CLD often had to wait a long time for their first appointments, and that many of their patients traveled from outside their state of practice to obtain care. These factors point to a supply/demand crisis in the treatment of PLD/CLD. There are simply not enough clinicians to supply the amount of care required by patients to get well. The challenges identified by clinicians here—a broken insurance model of care, professional stigma, and heightened liability exposure—also discourage other clinicians from providing care to people with PLD/CLD.

Not enough Lyme disease clinicians

Why Early Diagnosis and Avoiding Misdiagnosis is Important

To address the supply/demand crises, it is important to reduce the number of patients who develop PLD/CLD. This requires early diagnosis and treatment. Clinicians identified inadequate physician education about tick borne diseases, false negative lab tests, and misdiagnosis as key causes of delayed diagnosis.

Delayed Lyme disease diagnosis

Nearly three quarters of patients report having initially been misdiagnosed. Misdiagnosis is often caused by the lack of education of other clinicians about tick-borne diseases (Johnson 2011, 2018). In a case series of people who might have had early Lyme disease but didn’t have a rash, 54% of Lyme disease patients who didn’t have a rash were given the wrong diagnosis (Aucott 2009). Because of this, misdiagnosis should be seen as a major risk factor for PLD/CLD.

Conclusion

The challenges identified here related to insurance and professional stigma make it hard to keep and hire clinicians who can care for the rapidly growing number of people with PLD/CLD, which is currently estimated to be slightly less than 2 million cases (Delong 2019). They also make care more costly for patients. Diagnostic delays and misdiagnosis increase the number of patients who develop PLD/CLD, exacerbating the supply/demand problem.

As Lyme disease cases rise, the demand for PLD/CLD providers will rise. The limited number of educated practitioners and the expanding number of PLD/CLD patients have created a substantial supply and demand imbalance that must be addressed.

Resolving the supply/demand imbalance is vital for PLD/CLD patients to become healthy. To do this we must:

  • improve clinician education to prevent diagnostic delay and misdiagnosis
  • retain and recruit more clinicians to address the supply demand crises by reducing professional stigma and recognizing that divergent treatment approaches exist in PLD/CLD
  • develop insurance reimbursement models that take into account the complexity of care and the time it takes to provide care.

Failing to address these issues will leave patients unable to access or afford the care that they need.

If you are a patient who is not enrolled in MyLymeData,  please enroll today. If you are a researcher who wants to collaborate with us, please contact me directly.

The MyLymeData Viz Blog is written by Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA, who is the Chief Executive Officer of LymeDisease.org. You can contact her at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org. On Twitter, follow her @lymepolicywonk. 

Category:

Lyme, research

Unresolved Heart Block in Lyme Carditis: A Case Report

https://www.cureus.com/articles/112673-unresolved-heart-block-in-lyme-carditis-a-case-report

Unresolved Heart Block in Lyme Carditis: A Case Report

Shannon Baron , Subash Nepal, Madhab Lamichhane, Hal Roseman

Published: September 27, 2022 (see history)

DOI: 10.7759/cureus.29661

Cite this article as: Baron S, Nepal S, Lamichhane M, et al. (September 27, 2022) Unresolved Heart Block in Lyme Carditis: A Case Report. Cureus 14(9): e29661. doi:10.7759/cureus.29661

Abstract

A man in his thirties presented to the emergency department with a one-day history of syncopal episodes. He was found to have complete heart block and had multiple long and symptomatic pauses in telemetry while in the hospital. The longest pause was measured at 30 seconds. He had frequent occupational exposure to ticks and was found to have positive immunoglobulin G (IgG) and immunoglobulin M (IgM) antibodies for Lyme disease. He was immediately started on IV (intravenous) ceftriaxone and isoproterenol infusion for inotropy in anticipation of recovery of atrioventricular (AV) conduction with IV antibiotics. Rapid response was called for multiple symptomatic pauses overnight, the longest one lasting 30 seconds. The patient was taken for urgent temporary transvenous pacemaker placement in the morning. AV conduction failed to improve with IV antibiotics. A permanent pacemaker was placed on day four of hospitalization as his complete heart block failed to resolve with IV antibiotics and the patient could not be weaned from temporary pacemaker support.

A complete heart block is a rare manifestation of Lyme disease and warrants a high index of suspicion when a patient in an endemic area presents with this condition. A majority of patients recover with IV antibiotics, although some patients may need to be put on temporary pacemaker support in the interim. On rare occasions, a permanent pacemaker is necessary.

Atrioventricular conduction may fail to improve with IV antibiotics, and these patients may need early pacemaker support with a transvenous pacemaker in addition to IV ceftriaxone followed by permanent pacemaker placement. Our patient presented with recurrent Lyme disease and had a complete heart block on presentation, which failed to improve with IV antibiotics and required temporary transvenous pacemaker support followed by permanent pacemaker placement.

For more:

There are much sexier, lucrative diseases like zika, COVID, Swine flu, etc. that are cash cows for government bureaucrats in bed with Big Pharma and Big Media.

Please read this important expose on Fauci, the highest paid federal employee who has gotten nearly every single thing wrong about COVID, and who has been at the helm of NIAID for 7 presidencies peddling lies and controlling all government funding for science.  “Dr. Science,” after causing untold damage, is finally stepping down but will hardly fade into the background, and could in fact become even more powerful behind the scenes.

Category:

Heart Issues, Lyme, research

Can Lyme Disease Trigger A Cascade of Costly, Unnecessary Tests?

https://danielcameronmd.com/can-lyme-disease-trigger-a-cascade-of-costly-unnecessary-tests/

Can Lyme disease trigger a cascade of costly, unnecessary tests?

Lyme disease patient getting a costly tests including an MRI.
In an article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Dr. Meredith Niess described a case where routine medical tests triggered a cascade of costly, unnecessary care.
By

Dr. Meredith Niess discussed the case in more detail in an NPR story.[1] A man was scheduled for hernia surgery. A preoperative X-ray was ordered despite the paucity of evidence of whether the X-ray was needed. The X-ray suggested a mass. The patient was worried about cancer.

Cancer was ruled out. “In fact, a follow-up CT scan showed a clean lung but picked up another suspicious “something” in the patient’s adrenal gland,” stated Neiss. The second CT scan was negative.

Niess used the case “as an example of what researchers call a “cascade of care” — a seemingly unstoppable series of medical tests or procedures.”

This cascade effect has been described before. “With regard to medical technology, the term refers to a chain of events initiated by an unnecessary test, an unexpected result, or patient or physician anxiety, which results in ill-advised tests or treatments that may cause avoidable adverse effects and/or morbidity,” wrote Deyo.[2]

Deyo cited an example of a cascade effect in his review from the professionals who coined the term.

Mold & Stein offered the story of a patient admitted to the hospital for elective repair of an inguinal hernia.[3] “He had a history of coronary disease with very mild arterial narrowing on a previous cardiac catheterization. Anxious about his cardiac status, the surgeons requested a preoperative cardiology consultation. Perhaps uncertain about his own clinical judgment, the cardiologist suggested obtaining an exercise tolerance test.

This was delayed for six hours while the patient waited outside the test room, during which time he became anxious, agitated, and angry, and had some mild chest discomfort. Because of the chest discomfort, the test was not done and the patient was transferred to a telemetry unit. There he became more anxious and agitated, was found to have some electrocardiogram changes, and received medications.

He underwent another cardiac catheterization, which actually showed slight improvement since his previous test. At that point, the hernia repair could not be performed because of a full operating room schedule, and the primary physician was left to try to reassure the patient that he was in no danger. The procedure had to be delayed for two weeks.

In this example, the chain of events seemed to be fueled by physician anxiety, and it snowballed with the addition of patient anxiety.”

Cascade of tests for Lyme disease patients

In some cases, Lyme disease may go undiagnosed and with its broad array of symptoms and presentations can trigger a cascade of costly, unnecessary tests.

Misdiagnosis and delayed diagnosis have been described in a large Lyme disease database.

“More than half (51%) reported that it took them more than three years to be diagnosed and roughly the same proportion (54%) saw five or more clinicians before diagnosis. These diagnostic delays occurred despite the fact that 45% of participants reported early symptoms of Lyme disease within days to weeks of exposure,” wrote Johnson et al. [4]

Others with recurrent Lyme disease and Lyme encephalopathy have waited an average of 2 years before receiving treatment.[5,6]

These delays can have life-long repercussions. Once the Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb) infection disseminates, symptoms can become more problematic and treatment more difficult.

Related Articles:

What does a Lyme disease flare-up feel like?
Herxheimer reaction in a 13-year-old boy with Lyme disease
Lyme disease causes a mix of symptoms including autonomic dysfunction

References:
  1. When routine medical tests trigger a cascade of costly, unnecessary care. https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/06/13/1104141886/cascade-of-care
  2. Deyo RA. Cascade effects of medical technology. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23:23-44. doi:10.1146/annurev.publhealth.23.092101.134534
  3. Mold JW, Stein HF. The cascade effect in the clinical care of patients. N Engl J Med. Feb 20 1986;314(8):512-4. doi:10.1056/NEJM198602203140809
  4. Johnson L, Shapiro M, Mankoff J. Removing the Mask of Average Treatment Effects in Chronic Lyme Disease Research Using Big Data and Subgroup Analysis. Healthcare (Basel). Oct 12 2018;6(4)doi:10.3390/healthcare6040124
  5. Fallon BA, Keilp JG, Corbera KM, et al. A randomized, placebo-controlled trial of repeated IV antibiotic therapy for Lyme encephalopathy. Neurology. Mar 25 2008;70(13):992-1003. doi:10.1212/01.WNL.0000284604.61160.2d
  6. Cameron DJ. Consequences of treatment delay in Lyme disease. J Eval Clin Pract. Jun 2007;13(3):470-2. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2753.2006.00734.x

Category:

Lyme, Psychological Aspects, research

New Study Supports Conclusion of Retracted 2020 Study Showing Unvaxxed Kids Healthier Than Vaxxed & the Vaxxed Had a 36% Higher Risk of Asthma

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/study-unvaccinated-healthier-vaccinated-kids/?

New Study Supports Conclusion of Retracted 2020 Study Showing Unvaxxed Kids Healthier Than Vaxxed

A new study by James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D. and Dr. Russell Blaylock supports the conclusions of a study by Dr. Paul Thomas, published in November 2020 and later retracted after an anonymous reader expressed concerns.

study unvaxxed vaxxed health kids feature

In November 2020, a study that carefully examined 10 years’ worth of data from a pediatric practice in Oregon run by Dr. Paul Thomas was published. Five days following the publication of the study, Thomas’ license was suspended.

A month after that, the journal decided to inform the authors that an anonymous reader had expressed some concerns about the study.

This single reader’s comments that involved bad guesswork led ultimately to the journal’s decision to retract the paper, leaving the authors stunned.

The authors knew that the reader’s concerns had already been addressed during peer review, and expected the journal to rule in favor of not retracting the paper. The journal editorial board knew this, too.

The concern centered primarily on the question of whether the large differences in the number of medical visits required for attention to specific health conditions like anemia, gastroenteritis, asthma, ear infections and many others, were due to parents who did not vaccinate not showing up to their well-baby and well-child visits.

Because Thomas’ license was suspended, he had to focus on his case and try to keep his life from falling apart; the medical board kept postponing the hearing, and no hearing had occurred.

In fact, no hearing has been held to date.

James Lyons-Weiler, Ph.D. suggested to Thomas that perhaps the medical board had overreached by applying a penalty without due process, a fact that Thomas then shared with his lawyer.

When his lawyer wrote the medical board pointing out that Thomas had suffered a penalty without due process, they offered to reinstate his license, pending the outcome of a hearing, on the condition that he do no more research.

This clearly shows the agenda of the medical board was not to ensure that the children in the practice were receiving good pediatric medical care.

It is now clear that the singular priority of the medical board was to shut down Thomas’ practice of abiding by informed consent — as required by Oregon state law for all medical procedures — and to prevent him from sharing any additional findings from the 10 years of data that had been collected from his practice.

New study supports earlier conclusions by Thomas

Today, the study is revived by a second study, this time conducted by Lyons-Weiler and his medical collaborator, Dr. Russell Blaylock.

In this second study, the following questions were addressed:

  1. Which group of patients adhered to the regular well-child visit better, the vaccinated patients or those who had refused vaccines?
  2. In groups of patients matched for health check visitation usage, which adverse health outcomes following vaccination differed between vaccinated patients and those who refused vaccines?
  3. After adjusting for healthcare visitations and age, do vaccines still significantly affect overall adverse health conditions in a manner independent of their interaction with healthcare visitations and age?
  4. Did older patients in the practice who stopped vaccinating experience a decrease in the adverse health outcomes that have been attributed to vaccines?

The study results, which are found in the paper entitled “Revisiting Excess Diagnoses of Illnesses and Conditions in Children Whose Parents Provide Informed Permission to Vaccinate Them” show that the anonymous reader’s concerns were unfounded; the unvaccinated families made their well-child visits with greater frequency than the vaccinated families.

This study, funded by the public, answers the first questions.

The answer to the second question is “results vary,” but this may be due to smaller sample sizes reducing power (see the study for details).

The study split the patients into high, medium and low health care visitation usage blocks, and many of the adverse health effects are seen increased in the vaccinated group of patients within these blocks (blocks are groups of patients matched on health care visitation usage).

For the third question, the scientists found that after defining a model that included healthcare visit utilization and age, vaccines were still a significant factor that increased adverse health outcomes, many of which had previously been associated with vaccines.

Moreover, the authors also determined that vaccines were still significant following consideration of the interaction term between vaccination status and the other model factors.

Importantly, had the study authors not considered the interaction term, the results would have seemed to imply that vaccination was negatively predictive of adverse health outcomes.

In the model in which vaccines, health care visits per age and the interaction term was considered, the number of vaccines was a positive significant predictor of overall adverse health.

Interaction terms are usually ignored by studies that “adjust for” variables. Adding covariates into the model without considering the interaction term with the main effect — vaccines — can mask a significant effect on the rates of post-vaccination health issues, providing a misleading result.

It’s worth noting that breastfeeding — another correlate of lifestyle measures — had no significant singular or interaction effects.

Blaylock posed the final question to Lyons-Weiler, who conducted the data analysis.

When older children were studied, and those who had the most vaccines were compared to those to those of the same age who had fewer vaccines, a clear pattern emerged for most of the adverse health outcomes: the risk of having a higher adverse health outcome was higher in the most-vaccinated older children compared to the least-vaccinated older children to a degree that was larger than that expected given any variation between the two groups in healthcare visit utilization.

This reflects the positive health effects of vaccine cessation.

vaccine cessation
The age-matched effects of vaccine cessation. High Relative Risk values denote increased risk of a given health outcome in patients receiving more vaccines in the older age group (>1,500 days of age). The black bar shows the Relative Risk of HCV between these groups as a baseline.

The relative risk of adverse health outcomes in older children who continued to vaccinate compared to those who ceased vaccination in Thomas’ practice.

Combined, all of these results mean that the method developed by Lyons-Weiler to consider the number of office visits needed for adverse health outcomes represents a robust, reliable and rigorous advance in methodology for the study of adverse health outcomes following medical exposures, including vaccines.

The method, “Relative Incidence of Office Visits,” had already been shown to be more powerful.

Lyons-Weiler reports that this is necessarily so because the measure contains more information than mere rates of diagnosis.

The RIOV measure has a higher dynamic range than odds ratios and relative risks based on diagnosis only. Studies that focus on the rates of diagnosis are using a subset of RIOV but are only limiting their count of office visits to that for the initial diagnosis.

The authors estimated that vaccination increases the need for visits to the doctor for vaccine-related health outcomes at a rate of 2.56 to 4.98 new chronic-illness-related visits per unit increase in vaccination per year.

“That translates into far more chronic illness in vaccinating children than in those not vaccinating, a disease burden that is not considered in risk: benefit considerations when it comes to vaccine policies and laws,” said Lyons-Weiler.

The paper, which was subjected to blinded peer review, describes all of the details of the results, is open access, and is published in the peer-reviewed journal International Journal of Vaccine Theory, Research, and Practice.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Children’s Health Defense

Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge

Institute for Pure and Applied Knowledge brings knowledge and people together in the pursuit of success in research via progressive science.

This article was originally published by The Defender — Children’s Health Defense’s News & Views Website under Creative Commons license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Please consider subscribing to The Defender or donating to Children’s Health Defense.

___________________

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/asthma-risk-kids-vaccine-aluminum-exposure-cdc-study/

36% Higher Risk of Asthma in Some Kids Who Had Vaccine-Related Aluminum Exposure, CDC Study Shows

A federally funded study released Tuesday reported a “positive association” between “vaccine-related aluminum exposure” and “persistent asthma” in children 24-59 months old, but the study’s authors were careful to not suggest a causal relationship.

asthma aluminum vaccine cdc study feature
 
Overall, kids in the study who received 3 mg or more of vaccine-related aluminum had at least a 36% higher risk of developing persistent asthma than kids who got less than 3 the study’s lead author, Dr. Matthew F. Daley, told The Associated Press.  (See link for article)
 
_________________
 
**Comment**
 
It should be noted that the CDC has never done a study comparing the vaccinated with unvaccinated nor with children who weren’t exposed to aluminum at all in their vaccines.  To date, the CDC has never studied the cumulative effects of all the vaccines together.  Studies only look at one vaccine at a time typically compared to another vaccine (not a true placebo). 

Christopher Exley, Ph.D., an expert on aluminum toxicity, agreed the study will likely not result in altering the use of aluminum adjuvants in vaccines.

Exley added:

“The idea is to concede the smallest possible ground on aluminum toxicity and at the same time reinforcing what they want readers to think by citing multiple papers by stooges and those working directly for the aluminum industry — a classic example being where the authors look to reinforce that ingested aluminum is not a health issue in infants.”

Please read the entire article for all the details.

Also, please read James Lyons-Weiler’s take on it as well. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate the
association between aluminum exposure and asthma inci-
dence, stratified by eczema presence/absence.

Weiler states:

Raise your hand if you’re a parent and you have noticed that your child with eczema seems at risk of autoimmune conditions, including autoimmune diseases of the airways like persistent asthma when exposed to vaccines.

The risk was associated with vaccine-associated aluminum dose – and the increased risk was HUGE. “aHz of 1.26 per 1 mg increase in aluminum” means a 26% increase in the risk of asthma per 1,000 mcg aluminum-containing vaccine received. Children on the CDC’s schedule receive 5,640 mcg of aluminum by age 13, so children with eczema have a 78% increase in their risk of developing asthma by age 13 compared to kids who receive no aluminum-containing vaccines.

Kids without eczema had a 19% increase in asthma risk per 1 mg increase in vaccine-sourced aluminum; by age 13, they have a 57% increased risk of asthma compared to kids who receive no aluminum-containing vaccines.

He then proceeds to wipe the floor with Dr. Paul Offit, who is calling for “extraordinary evidence” which Weiler states means randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which will never happen (just like in Lymeland).

Category:

Activism, research, vaccines

Cancers Increasing Dramatically & Did the COVID Shot Worsen A Famous Doctor’s Cancer?

**UPDATE Oct. 2022**

An analysis of U.S. Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR) data suggests the CDC has been filtering and re-designating cancer deaths as COVID deaths since April, 2021 to eliminate the cancer signal. The signal is being hidden by swapping the underlying cause of death with the main cause of death.  And before it was manipulated, data from the Defense Medical Epidemiology Database (DMED) showed cancer rates in military personal and in their families TRIPLED after the shot rollout. Cancer patients have also gotten younger with the largest increase among 30-50 year olds, with dramatically larger, and multiple tumors, occurring in multiple organs as well as recurrence and metastasis increasing.

https://www.sciencealert.com/cancers-in-adults-under-50-have-increased-dramatically-around-the-globe

Cancers in Adults Under 50 Have Increased Dramatically Around The Globe

By Fiona MacDonald, 08 September 2022

(bymuratdeniz/Getty Images)

Cancer has long been part of the human story. But a new review has shown that, recently, something has shifted.

Since 1990, the number of adults under the age of 50 developing cancer has increased dramatically around the world.

What’s concerning is that the increase in early-onset cancers doesn’t seem to be slowing down – and improvements in screening alone don’t seem to be able to fully explain the trend.

“We found that this risk is increasing with each generation,” says one of the researchers, Shuji Ogino, a pathologist and epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston.

(See link for article)

__________________

SUMMARY:

  • The researchers looked at 14 cancer types:  breast, colorectal (CRC), endometrial, esophageal, extrahepatic bile duct, gallbladder, head and neck, kidney, liver, bone marrow, pancreas, prostate, stomach, and thyroid cancer – all of which are on the rise according to global cancer data.
  • Then they reviewed any available studies that could shed light on possible risk factors for these cancers by looking for clues in the literature describing any unique clinical and biological characteristics of tumors of early-onset cancers.
  • They found that early-onset cancer is an emerging global epidemic.
  • They found the following issues contributed to the uptick:
    • increased screening, however even countries that don’t have screening programs have increased cancer rates.
    • Diet
    • lifestyle
    • weight (obesity)
    • environmental exposures
    • microbiome
    • sedentary lifestyle
    • alcohol consumption
    • type 2 diabetes
  • Among the types of cancers studied 14 are related to the digestive system.
  • Regarding children, they are getting a lot less sleep than in the past.

The research has been published in Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

While the article doesn’t mention it specifically, radiation from wireless devices such as cell phones which have become prominent today may be adding to this cancer surge as well.  It is commonly known that EMFs wreak havoc in the body and many Lyme/MSIDS are particularly vulnerable.

Another little discussed topic is glyphosate, the major ingredient in Bayer-Monsanto’s Roundup which is the most widely used pesticide in the U.S. WHO and CA scientists both agree it is linked to cancer, yet the EPA concluded it was “safe” and “not likely” to cause cancer. The EPA has been forced to review this due to a federal judge finding the agency ignored human health studies, expert advice, and the agency’s guidelines for determining cancer risk. Source

And a 2021 study links lung cancer with mask usage.

Similarly to research regarding tick-borne illnesses, Alzheimer’s and cancer research have been controlled by a Cabal and researchers are currently accused of doctoring images, plagiarism, and faking data.

The article also doesn’t mention the link between the COVID mRNA shots and cancer:

  • the lipid nanoparticle mRNA COVID injection goes systemically into the entire body and doesn’t remain in the arm as thought.
  • It continues to produce the spike protein at least 60 days out if not longer and is being found 15 months later.
  • It also interferes with cancer blocking genes and they are seeing an uptick in cancers as well as other viruses now after the shots
  • there’s been a 40% increase in deaths those ages 18-64 years of age and an 84% increase in the 25-44 age group according to insurance companies.

The following story is a perfect example of the very real potential link:

https://thehighwire.com/videos/renowned-physician-documents-aggressive-cancer-post-covid-vaccines/  Video Here (Approx. 14 Min)

RENOWNED PHYSICIAN DOCUMENTS AGGRESSIVE CANCER POST COVID VACCINES

Belgian immunologist and medical research icon, Michel Goldman, had his values challenged when a Covid booster shot appeared to rapidly accelerate his cancer. He decided to go public with his story and tell the world.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2022/09/mrna-covid-vaccine-booster-lymphoma-cancer/671308/

Did a Famous Doctor’s COVID Shot Make His Cancer Worse?

A lifelong promoter of vaccines suspects he might be the rare, unfortunate exception.
By Roxanne Khamsi
 
Sept. 24, 2022
 
Excerpts:
 
On September 22 of last year, Michel Goldman, a Belgian immunologist and one of Europe’s best-known champions of medical research, walked into a clinic near his house, rolled up his sleeve, and had a booster shot delivered to his arm.
 
Just a few weeks earlier, Michel, 67, had been to see his younger brother, Serge, the head of nuclear medicine at the hospital of the Université Libre de Bruxelles, where both men are professors. Michel was having night sweats, and he could feel swollen lymph nodes in his neck, so his brother brought him in for a full-body CT scan. When the images came through to Serge’s computer they revealed a smattering of inky spots, bunched near Michel’s left armpit and running up along his neck. It was cancer of the immune system—lymphoma.
 

Given his own area of expertise, Michel understood this meant he’d soon be immunocompromised by chemotherapy. With another winter on the way—and perhaps another wave of SARS-CoV-2 infections—that meant he had just a narrow window of opportunity in which his body would respond in full to COVID vaccination. Having received two doses of Pfizer the prior spring, Michel quickly went to get his third. If he was about to spend months absorbing poison as he tried to beat a deadly cancer, at least he’d have the most protection possible from the pandemic.

Within a few days, though, Michel was somehow feeling even worse. His night sweats got much more intense, and he found himself—quite out of character—taking afternoon naps. Most worryingly, his lymph nodes were even more swollen than before. He conferred with Serge again, and they set up another body scan for September 30, six days before Michel was scheduled to start his cancer treatment. Once again he sat in the radiology waiting room while his brother waited for the pictures to appear on his computer.

Serge’s bushy eyebrows furrowed when he spoke with Michel after having seen the scans. (“I will always remember his face, it was just incredible,” Michel told me.) The pictures showed a brand-new barrage of cancer lesions—so many spots that it looked like someone had set off fireworks inside Michel’s body. More than that, the lesions were now prominent on both sides of the body, with new clusters blooming in Michel’s right armpit in particular, and along the right side of his neck.  (See link for article)

___________________

SUMMARY:

  • It is unusual to see such a swift progression in just 3 weeks
  • He hand his brother had a gnawing feeling the booster made him sicker
  • The article erroneously states this is a very rare life-threatening side effect.  Doctors have been reporting this finding all over the world but are ignored.
  • An avid proponent of the shots, going to far as to reassure others about their safety, he’s definitely having a red pill experience.
  • Unfortunately he bought and propagated the lie that any chance of serious complications from the shots pale in comparison to the chance of complications from COVID.
  • Michael threw him into researching the mechanisms of action of the COVID shots and did find clues suggesting the the mRNA shots might be risky for a subset of the population as they are effective at generating a message and spurring its passage through helper T cells, which could give such a jolt to helper T cells that they go berserk.  Overstimulation on those prone to forming tumors in those already with cancer, overstimulation could make it worse.
  • He learned that body scans of some of those who get vaccines, including cancer patients, have shown heightened activity in the lymph nodes near the armpit on the side where the shot was received.
  • A mouse study also corroborated his experience.
  • Michael wrote a paper, about his experience titled “Rapid Progression of Angioimmunoblastic T Cell Lymphoma Following BNT162b2 mRNA Vaccine Booster Shot”
  • Worried his study would fuel vaccine skepticism he labored over every word, yet his paper follows earlier reports also suggesting a possible link between the COVID shot and lymphoma
  • Another doctor also worried that writing about five patients who had a relapse of kidney disease and eight patients who were newly diagnosed after getting the shot would also fuel vaccine skepticism.
  • Michael’s immunologist stated that the vaccine appeared to be related to the cancer’s behavior and then reneged by stating it’s just a case report – one patient.

Category:

Activism, diet and nutrition, Gut Health, research, Sleep