Archive for the ‘research’ Category

Study Shows Significant Link Between Mercury & Autism

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/10/13/is-mercury-linked-to-autism

Study Shows Significant Link Between Mercury and Autism

Analysis by Dr. Joseph MercolaFact Checked
is mercury linked to autism

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • A September 2020 meta-analysis concludes there is a significant relationship between autism and concentrations of lead and mercury in the body
  • According to the researchers, mercury concentration is a pathogenic cause for autism, meaning it’s a causative factor
  • According to a 2014 review, there is evidence of malfeasance and conflicts of interest in studies claiming that thimerosal in vaccines is safe
  • Serious flaws and errors also plague studies that claim aluminum in vaccines is safe. A mathematical error found in a key FDA study has reignited concerns about the safety of aluminum in vaccines
  • Glutathione is the dominant agent that binds to and helps move mercury and other heavy metals out of your tissues. Part of effective detox involves upregulating your biochemistry to facilitate the mobilization and elimination of metals

The controversy over whether mercury overexposure can trigger autism is a long-standing one. A new meta-analysis of previous studies sheds much needed light on the matter, concluding there’s a “significant relationship” between the two.

The review,1,2 published in the September 2020 issue of Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics, looked at 18 studies conducted between 1982 and 2019 that examined the relationship between concentrations of copper, lead or mercury in blood, plasma, hair or nails and the prevalence of autism. While no relationship was found between autism and copper concentrations, a high degree of correlation was found for mercury and lead.

According to the authors,3 the relationship between mercury and autism is so strong that “the concentration of mercury can be listed as a pathogenic cause (disease-causing) for autism.” This held true even when outlier studies that might unduly influence the results were removed.

Mercury Is a Causative Factor

In the introduction, the authors point out that studies carried out in this area suggest mercury and other toxins are involved in the cause of autism, which include abnormal brain development that affects social interaction and communication skills.

“Metals’ biological effects are associated with their chemical properties, suggesting that excessive metal exposure can cause brain abnormalities around the world,” the researchers state.4

Mercury is considered as a risk factor for autism since, according to previous studies, it has been recognized as a neurotrophic toxin. Reduction in mercury content in hair and teeth of the children with autism aroused the low disposal of mercury hypothesis.

Blaurock-Bush et al found that heavy metals are effective in the development of autism disorder. The role of mercury in the pathogenesis of autism has also been proven in other studies …

According to points raised in the present study … it would be quite reasonable to advise prevention of exposure to mercury and lead in children and provision of suitable conditions during the sensitive period of mothers’ pregnancy as vital measures to prevent the disease …”

A 2017 review paper,5 “The Toxicology of Mercury: Current Research and Emerging Trends,” details the “kinetics of this metal,” including “its metabolism, interaction with other metals, distribution, internal doses and targets and reservoir organs.” The paper cites several studies linking mercury and autism among its references, noting that:6

“Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) has been demonstrated to be accompanied by distorted metal homeostasis. The degree to which people are affected by the metals seems to be largely influenced by the individual genetic makeup.

Especially Hg [mercury] exposure has become a suspected causative factor for many pathological conditions, and several sources of exposure to Hg compounds can be listed, including dental amalgam fillings, seafood, vaccines and increasingly from energy saving light bulbs as well.”

Malfeasance in Research Showing Thimerosal Safety

In the video above, the University of Calgary faculty of medicine illustrate how mercury causes neuronal degeneration in your brain. While there are many environmental sources of mercury exposure, some of the most prominent ones include high-mercury fish, dental amalgam and thimerosal-containing vaccines.

Thimerosal is a mercury-based preservative used in certain vaccines. While it has been removed from most childhood vaccines, it is still used in some multidose vials, meaning vials that contain more than a single dose of the vaccine.

Remarkably, while the fact that mercury is neurotoxic is noncontroversial, health authorities still insist injected thimerosal is perfectly safe and has never been linked to neurological dysfunction. How could that be?

In 2014, a review article7 in the BioMed Research International journal titled, “Methodological Issues and Evidence of Malfeasance in Research Purporting to Show Thimerosal in Vaccines Is Safe,” noted that:

“The studies upon which the CDC relies and over which it exerted some level of control report that there is no increased risk of autism from exposure to organic Hg in vaccines, and some of these studies even reported that exposure to Thimerosal appeared to decrease the risk of autism.

These six studies are in sharp contrast to research conducted by independent researchers over the past 75+ years that have consistently found Thimerosal to be harmful … Many studies conducted by independent investigators have found Thimerosal to be associated with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Several studies, for example, including three of the six studies covered in this review, have found Thimerosal to be a risk factor for tics. In addition, Thimerosal has been found to be a risk factor in speech delay, language delay, attention deficit disorder, and autism.

Considering that there are many studies conducted by independent researchers which show a relationship between Thimerosal and neurodevelopmental disorders, the results of the six studies examined in this review, particularly those showing the protective effects of Thimerosal, should bring into question the validity of the methodology used in the studies …

Importantly … five of the publications examined in this review were directly commissioned by the CDC, raising the possible issue of conflict of interests or research bias, since vaccine promotion is a central mission of the CDC.

Conceivably, if serious neurological disorders are found to be related to Thimerosal in vaccines, such findings could possibly be viewed as damaging to the vaccine program.

Aluminum Is Another Neurotoxic Poison

Today, the most commonly used vaccine preservative is aluminum, not thimerosal. It’s unfortunate that the Pediatric Health, Medicine and Therapeutics review did not include it, because it’s likely that aluminum has a similar impact on autism as mercury.

According to a 2018 study,8 people with autism were found to have high amounts of aluminum in their brains.

“The mean (standard deviation) aluminium content across all 5 individuals for each lobe were 3.82(5.42), 2.30(2.00), 2.79(4.05) and 3.82(5.17) μg/g dry wt. for the occipital, frontal, temporal and parietal lobes respectively,” the researchers noted.9

The lead author on this paper was Dr. Christopher Exley, a leading expert in aluminum toxicology. He and a team of international scientists have also published a paper10 in the (preprint) December 2020 issue of the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology.

In it, they provide evidence for their position that “the safety of aluminium-based vaccine adjuvants … must be seriously evaluated without further delay, particularly at a time when the CDC is announcing a still increasing prevalence of autism spectrum disorders, of 1 child in 54 in the USA.”

As with thimerosal above, serious flaws and errors plague studies that claim aluminum in vaccines is safe. As reported in “Major Error Found in Vaccine Aluminum Safety Calculation,” a mathematical error found in a key U.S. Food and Drug Administration study has reignited concerns about its safety.

The FDA study,11 published in 2011, compared aluminum exposure from vaccines in infants to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry’s (ATSDR) safety limit of oral aluminum, concluding that:12

“… the body burden of aluminum from vaccines and diet throughout an infant’s first year of life is significantly less than the corresponding safe body burden of aluminum modeled using the regulatory MRL.

We conclude that episodic exposures to vaccines that contain aluminum adjuvant continue to be extremely low risk to infants and that the benefits of using vaccines containing aluminum adjuvant outweigh any theoretical concerns.”

The problem, found by Physicians for Informed Consent, is that the FDA based its calculations on 0.78% of oral aluminum being absorbed into the bloodstream instead of the value of 0.1% used by the ATSDR.

“As a result,” Physicians for Informed Consent noted,13 “the FDA paper assumed that nearly 8 (0.78%/0.1%) times more aluminum can safely enter the bloodstream, and this led the authors to incorrectly conclude that aluminum exposure from vaccines was well below the safety limit.” Christopher Shaw, a professor at the University of British Columbia who has studied the effects of injected aluminum, explained in a news release:14

We knew that the [2011] Mitkus et al. paper modeling aluminum clearance had to be inaccurate since it was assuming that injected aluminum kinetics were the same as the kinetics of aluminum acquired through diet.

Now, in addition, we see that they did their modeling based on using the incorrect level of aluminum absorption. What is particularly striking is that despite all these errors, since 2011, Mitkus et al. is used by CDC and other entities as the basis for claiming that aluminum adjuvants are safe.”

The Dangers of Lead

Lead is a naturally occurring metal that was once commonly used in gasoline, paint and children’s toys, and is still a part of batteries, pipes, pottery, roofing materials and cosmetics. Due to environmental pollution, food and water has also become a source of this dangerous toxin.

If you live in an urban area or near a busy road, it’s probably best to assume that your soil is contaminated with lead to some extent. This is also an issue if you plan to plant a vegetable garden, as vegetables can take up lead from the soil very efficiently.

Lead damages your brain and nervous system, and has been shown to lower IQ. Even small amounts can be dangerous, as lead builds up in your body over time. Children under 6 are especially at risk, as they absorb lead more easily than adults.

As detailed in “The Heroes Who Sunk Lead,” Herbert Needleman performed much of the foundational research showing even low levels of lead were dangerous. Another crucial crusader against lead was geochemist Clair Cameron Patterson, Ph.D.

It’s thanks to Patterson’s tireless work that lead was finally removed from gasoline, thereby saving untold billions of people from serious harm.15 He’s an unsung public health hero of the 20th century that most people have never heard of.

The video below is a short summary of the evolution of leaded gas, and ultimately, its removal, which was no small feat. Unfortunately, there are many other sources of toxic metals, and unless we address them all, we’re unlikely to get a handle on the autism epidemic. 

We’re Getting Mercury Out of Dentistry

As mentioned, dental mercury is one pernicious source of mercury. Here, there is good news. After years of pressure from Consumers for Dental Choice and its allies, the FDA has finally released a long-overdue safety communication on dental amalgam.16 September 24, 2020, the FDA issued a warning that mercury fillings may adversely affect:

Pregnant women and their developing fetuses

Women who are planning to become pregnant

Nursing women and their newborns and infants

Children, especially those younger than 6

People with pre-existing neurological disease such as multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease or Parkinson’s disease

People with impaired kidney function

People with known heightened sensitivity (allergy) to mercury or other components of dental amalgam

While the FDA downplays the importance of its changed recommendation by stressing that the benefits of dental amalgam likely “outweigh their risks for most patients,” this update is nothing short of monumental, and opens the door, finally, for the elimination of dental mercury for all patients in the U.S., as has been done in many other countries already.

Detoxifying Heavy Metals

Heavy metal detoxification is no simple matter. As explained in “The Three Pillars of Heavy Metal Detoxification,” glutathione is the dominant agent that binds to and helps move mercury and other heavy metals out of your tissues. Part of effective detox involves upregulating your biochemistry to facilitate the mobilization and elimination of metals. In summary, the three pillars of heavy metal detox are:

  1. Cleanse and clear your GI tract of metals and toxins
  2. Optimize glutathione
  3. Upregulate detox genes

My mercury detox protocol is detailed in “Revised Protocol for Detoxifying Your Body from Mercury Exposure.” One way to help improve your glutathione is by taking N-acetylcysteine (NAC), which is a precursor to and rate-limiting nutrient for the formation of glutathione.

Glutathione is poorly absorbed so, in many cases, it’s easier to raise your glutathione by taking NAC instead. You can learn more about this in “Glutathione and NAC Play Crucial Roles in Health and Fitness.”

In addition to upregulating your biochemistry to mobilize and eliminate heavy metals, sauna bathing can go a long way toward eliminating mercury and other toxins from your body. You can learn more about this in “How to Achieve Superior Detoxification With Near-Infrared Light.”

In January 2020, I also interviewed Boyd Haley, Ph.D., is a chemist specializing in the development of chemicals to chelate toxic metals. Haley has developed a nontoxic chelating compound called emeramide or NBMI (brand name Irminix), which tightly binds to mercury and free iron (which is also highly toxic), and acts as a potent antioxidant, as it has two glutathione arms.

Emeramid is still under drug development but can be obtained via expanded access, named patient use, compassionate use or special use, depending on the country you’re in. An early access application and prescription, required by the EMA, is available on the company’s website, EmeraMed.com.17

In closing, the evidence strongly suggests exposure to mercury, lead and aluminum are significant risk factors for autism and other neuropathologies. The simplest answer to the autism epidemic is therefore to prevent children from these kinds of exposures. That includes banning dental amalgam and getting thimerosal and aluminum out of all vaccines.

+ Sources and References

______________________

‘I Never Had a Single Unvaccinated Patient with Autism’ Dr. Ben Tapper

For more:

Peer-Reviewed Study Confirms What We Knew All Along: Longer Antibiotic Treatment Duration Is Associated With Better Treatment Response for Lyme Disease

https://www.lymedisease.org/antibiotics-for-lyme-disease/

Antibiotics for Lyme Disease – Useful For Treating Chronic Lyme Patients?

By Lorraine Johnson

10/9/20

One of the thorniest issues in Lyme disease has to do with the use of antibiotics for Lyme disease. According to the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2-4 weeks of antibiotic treatment is more than enough to knock out the illness.

Here’s the problem with that. Every year, tens of thousands of people who take that prescribed short course of treatment remain ill.

This happens to some of those diagnosed early, and it happens more to those whose diagnosis is delayed. But the IDSA and CDC recommend no further treatment for them. They just say, “Don’t take any more antibiotics.”

Patients who still hope to recover their health often find their way to doctors willing to prescribe longer courses of antibiotics for Lyme disease. And as a result, some people get much better. Unfortunately, however, not everybody.

This is one of the questions we have sought to answer through our MyLymeData patient registry: Why do some people improve substantially with antibiotic treatment, while others do not?

Longer antibiotic treatment durations were associated with better treatment response — with most high responders and well patients reporting treatment durations of four or more months and many reported durations exceeding a year.

Our recently published peer-reviewed study of over 2,000 participants from MyLymeData begins to answer those questions.

How do patients respond to treatment?

We looked at patients with chronic Lyme disease—those who remained ill for six or more months following treatment with antibiotics for Lyme disease (Shor 2019). The first thing we did was identify different patients as well, high responders, low responders, or non-responders. Well patients responded positively to a survey question asking if they were well or remained ill. Those who remained ill were asked whether their condition had changed as a result of treatment. Those who said they were unchanged or worse (41%) were categorized as non-responders. Patients who said that they were better or worse following treatment, were asked how much better or worse. Those who had improved substantially (moderate to a very great deal of improvement) were deemed high responders.

You can see the break-down of patients in the table below:
Lyme disease antibiotics patient response

59% of patients had improved with treatment and 42% were either well or high responders. The focus of our study was on this latter group. You might wonder whether 42% response is considered good compared to other drugs. (I know I did.) Here’s what the prior head of GlaxoSmithKline said about treatment effectiveness rates of drugs in general (Connor, 2003).

“The vast majority of drugs – more than 90 per cent – only work in 30 or 50 per cent of the people. Drugs out there on the market work, but they don’t work in everybody.”
— Dr. Allen Roses, GlaxoSmithKline

So you can see that a 42% rate of substantial improvement is within the range of most drugs on the market.

Compared to the general population and patients with other chronic diseases, chronic Lyme patients report a substantially lower quality of life and a significant symptom disease burden. In this study, high responders and well patients reported substantially better quality of life, a greater percentage of improvement, and reduction in symptom severity. Patients who identified as well reported their quality of life comparable to the US general population.

What factors determine how patients respond to treatment?

To find out what made some patient substantially improve or become well, we turned to our academic partners at the University of California at Los Angeles who specialize in artificial intelligence and machine learning. Their team looked at 215 features related to diagnostic factors, treatment approach, duration of individual antibiotics, alternative treatments, symptoms, type of clinician, and functional impairment to identify the 30 top predictive features for treatment response (Vendrow 2020). Most of the top 30 features identified in their study related to chronic Lyme disease treatment (20), symptom severity (9), and type of clinician treating Lyme disease. We analyzed three of these factors associated with treatment response:

  • Treatment approach (antibiotics, alternative, both or no treatment)
  • Treatment durations
  • Type of clinician overseeing the patients care

What treatment approach did well patients and high responders use?

We asked patients what their treatment approach was and listed four options a) antibiotics, b) alternative treatments, c) both antibiotics and alternative treatments, and d) no treatment at all. High treatment response was most closely associated with the use of antibiotics compared to patients who were using alternative treatments alone or forgoing treatment altogether. Treatment with antibiotics for Lyme disease was far higher among well patients (76%) and high responders (59%) compared to non-responders (38%).

As you can see in the chart below, many patients who were taking antibiotics were also taking herbal supplements, which can be antimicrobial (kill bacteria and viruses). So it is possible that there was a synergistic effect between antibiotics and herbal supplements.

More well patients and high-responders report using antibiotics for Lyme disease

Why this is important

The use and duration of antibiotics for chronic Lyme disease treatment is controversial because there is no biomarker that can determine whether the Lyme bacteria has been eradicated in CLD patients. Patients are often told that either chronic Lyme disease does not exist or that it is “incurable.” If this were true, we would not expect more well and substantially improved patients to be taking antibiotics. Instead, we might have expected the percentage of people using antibiotics to be roughly the same among the patient subgroups.

Treatment duration

The optimal chronic Lyme disease treatment is unknown. The four retreatment trials by the National Institute of Health on small samples of patients have produced conflicting results—and most importantly — were all limited to 90 days of treatment (Krupp 2003, Fallon 2008, Klempner 2001, Delong 2012). The Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the CDC generally do not recommend treatment for longer than a month (Wormser 2006).

However, a study by the CDC found that patients with Lyme disease generally reported longer treatment durations – with 60% of patients treated for five or more weeks and 36% treated for more than eight weeks (Hook 2015). Unfortunately, that study did not ask patients how long they had been ill. And, the CDC assumed these patients had acute disease – an assumption that may have been wrong. Without looking further, the CDC simply concluded that physicians needed to be better trained to shorten their treatment duration to less than a month.

But, as the chart below illustrates, in the study longer chronic Lyme disease treatment durations were common. Most were treated for four or more months (57%), and 32% were treated for more than a year.

Lyme disease antibiotic treatment duration

More importantly, longer treatment durations were associated with better treatment response—with most high responders and well patients reporting treatment durations of four or more months and many reported durations exceeding a year. As the chart below reveals, those treated for less than a month were unlikely to report improvement.

Lyme disease antibiotic treatment duration by patient subgroup

Why this is important

Insurance companies often deny payment for extended antibiotic care for Lyme disease.  Furthermore, many physicians who prescribe long-term antibiotics have been targeted by medical boards. Yet, longer treatments are seen across the board here, with 57% exceeding four months and 32% exceeding one year. This means that these lengths of treatment are common for patients with chronic Lyme disease and reflect clinical practice in the community.

As many as 3 million people have chronic Lyme disease in the US, and nobody knows the best way to treat them,” said Lorraine Johnson, CEO of LymeDisease.org. “The key finding here is that patients who are now well or who report substantial improvement have taken longer courses of antibiotics.”

The fact that more patients who are well or have substantial improvement report longer treatment durations tells us that many patients improve with longer treatment durations. This suggests that the CDC’s conclusion that better clinician training is needed to curb treatment durations is off-base. Instead, it appears that doctors are using their clinical judgement and doing what works for their individual patients. This is the approach recommended by the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society (ILADS) (Cameron 2014).

The implications of this are profound because they suggest that the legal “standard of care” for patients with chronic Lyme disease is for longer treatment durations. When patients with the most improvement in their health report the longest treatment durations, how can you argue that it should be denied?

Type of clinician overseeing care

We asked patients to tell us the type of clinician overseeing their care. Choices included: family physicians, internists, rheumatologists, infectious disease specialists, and clinicians whose practice focused on tick-borne diseases (often referred to as Lyme Literate MDs or LLMDs). Very few patients (11%) selected an infectious disease specialist. Seventy-five percent of high responders and well patients report having their care overseen by an LLMD.

More High Responders Treated by Clinicians With Tick-Borne Disease Practice Focus

Physicians who treat Lyme disease as their primary focus might be expected to have better results than physicians who don’t simply because volume of cases handled means a greater experience level. It is commonly recognized in medicine that volume of cases is associated with better treatment outcomes (Joynt 2013). Just as patients with cancer commonly seek out physicians who specialize in that area, perhaps patients with chronic Lyme disease should also.

Why this is important

Medical boards, insurance companies, and the government often rely on the treatment guidelines of the IDSA on the basis that IDSA clinicians have the most expertise in infectious diseases and, accordingly, know what is best for patients with Lyme disease. However, patients with chronic Lyme disease are generally not treated by infectious disease experts. When short term treatment protocols fail, they find another physician to provide more individualized and longer term care. Many of these clinicians specialize in treating chronic Lyme disease and have developed greater experience and knowledge about what works. It is important that high responders and well patients more often report using LLMDs. This shows that LLMDs are associated with better patient outcomes and their expertise in this area should be more highly valued.

Main take-aways

Let me leave you with these three take-aways from the study. Chronic Lyme disease patients who improve substantially more often:

  • Use antibiotics as part of their treatment approach
  • Take antibiotics for more than 4 months and often for more than a year
  • Rely on LLMDs to oversee their care

A note of caution: None of this should be taken to suggest that patients should blindly take antibiotics for longer durations to get well. These findings are preliminary – observational studies like this do not have control groups and cannot prove cause and effect. What they can do is suggest approaches that may improve patient outcomes. Patients vary considerably in their treatment response. In chronic Lyme disease treatment, one size does not fit all. In fact, when patients who were not taking antibiotics were ask why, about 25% responded that antibiotics had never worked for them. And some responded that antibiotics “no longer” worked for them. But for now, it seems that doctors should be using individualized care based on their diagnosis and the response of this particular patient to treatments.

The other thing this study suggests is that we have a long way to go to determine optimal care for chronic Lyme patients. For example, why do some patients not respond to treatment and which antibiotics are the most effective?

Personal Reflections

Back in 2004, when I was just beginning to get well after being ill for about five years, I co-authored a commentary with Dr. Raphael Stricker about Lyme disease having “two standards of care.” Before becoming ill, I had a robust career as a lawyer. Thus, it was natural that I would address a legal topic as my first opportunity to give back to a community that had made it possible for me to recover. But at that time, I was thinking that the two standards of care related to the divergent guidelines of the IDSA and the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society.

With this study, it now seems that the two standards of care still exist, but that they reflect how physicians are treating different stages of the disease. People treated under the IDSA guidelines are mainly those with acute disease—the rash, Bell’s palsy, or a flu-like illness after a recent tick bite. When patients remain ill after the short courses of antibiotics offered by the IDSA, they look for clinicians who are more experienced with treating chronic Lyme disease—typically LLMDs.

A few years ago, someone asked me whether it was important to be treated by an LLMD or if they should see someone who did not focus on Lyme disease. And, although I told the person “you know, I think you might do better with an LLMD,” I had no data to back up that suggestion. Now we do.

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.  If you have not signed up for our patient-centered big data project, MyLymeData, please register now.

MyLymeData Lyme Disease Research

About MyLymeData Lyme Disease Research

MyLymeData is one of the largest patient-driven registries in the nation, with over 13,500 patients enrolled. It was created by patients, is run by patients and will address the issues that Lyme disease patients care about. MyLymeData Viz provides the community with results from MyLymeData. If you are enrolled in MyLymeData, we thank you for providing the data that will accelerate the pace of research in Lyme disease. If you are not enrolled, please enroll today.

You might be interested in more MyLymeData results:

______________________

**Comment**

The results of this study are identical to my experience both as a patient and as an advocate working with many patients. When people solicit my advice, I immediately tell them mainstream medicine will not treat this appropriately. Period. That’s not to say it can’t be used for other side-issues that arise, but for any hope of recovering from tick-borne illness, they should get to an ILADS trained doctor with experience.

It’s truly saddening that polarization continues unabated with this complex illness, but that is the true state of things. I’ve watched similar issues arise with the COVID-19 debacle. Due to severe conflicts of interest our public ‘authorities’ are allowed to have, they completely malign any test or treatment they don’t control and obtain profits from:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/26/cdc-playbook-learning-from-lyme/

I completely agree with Weiler:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/01/it-is-time-to-reboot-public-health-time-for-a-cdc-niaid-fda-walk-away-movement/

Robert Kennedy identified that the CDC owns over 50 vaccine-related patents:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/11/examining-rfk-jr-s-claim-that-the-cdc-owns-over-20-vaccine-patents-its-actually-over-50/

The CDC owns numerous patents regarding Lyme disease:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/06/28/who-owns-the-elisa-patents/  (There is also a link within this one showing the many patents our ‘authorities” own)

Transmission of Bartonella Within Rhipicephalus Sanguineus: Data on Potential Vector Role of the Tick

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33001978/

 
  • Bartonella henselae

The article also mentions that Rhipicephalus sanguineus, aka, the brown dog tick, kennel tick or pan tropical tick, (found worldwide) may also transmit Bartonella as it carries it. Further studies are needed to prove vector competence:

http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/creatures/urban/medical/brown_dog_tick.htm

For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/01/03/bartonella-treatment/

Bartonella Clarridgeiae Found in Patient With Aortic Root Abscess & Endocarditis

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32974498/

Bartonella clarridgeiae infection in a patient with aortic root abscess and endocarditis

Free PMC article

Abstract

Introduction: Bartonella species are increasingly recognized as agents of culture-negative endocarditis. However, to date, almost all human cases have been associated with two members of the genus, Bartonella henselae and Bartonella quintana. B. henselae infections are zoonotic, with domestic cats serving as reservoir hosts for the pathogen. Bartonella clarridgeiae also exploits cats as reservoir hosts, but its zoonotic potential is far less established.

Case presentation: A 34-year-old male presented with palpitations after a history of aortic incompetence. During surgery for an aortic valve replacement, two vegetations were found on the aortic valve. PCR analysis of the vegetation demonstrated the presence of Bartonella species and so the patient was treated post-operatively with ceftriaxone and doxycycline, making a good recovery. Further PCR-based analysis of the patient’s aortic vegetation confirmed the presence of B. clarridgeiae .

Conclusion: This report expands the number of Bartonella species associated with endocarditis and provides clear evidence that B. clarridgeiae should be considered a zoonotic pathogen.

_________________

**Comment**

Aortic root abscess is a life-threatening complication of endocarditis.  In this case, caused by Bartonella clarridgeiae, a strain of Bartonella found to cause cat scratch disease going back to 1997 by none other than Dr. Breitshwerdt, after a veterinarian was bitten on the finger by a cat:  https://jcm.asm.org/content/35/7/1813

Important excerpt:

Within 3 weeks he developed headache, fever, and left axillary lymphadenopathy. Initial blood cultures from the cat and veterinarian were sterile. Repeat cultures from the cat grew Bartonella-like organisms with lophotrichous flagella.

This is a reminder that Bartonella, similar to Lyme (borrelia) is fastidious and hard to find.  Most doctors quit after an initial test returns negative.  In this case the patient was lucky enough to be under the observation of a veterinarian who understands this fact and cultured repeatedly.  The issue of strain variation is important as well.  The test is only as good as what it is testing for.

How many patients have had endocarditis caused by Bartonella species that either aren’t considered pathogenic yet OR weren’t picked up in a singular test?  

Possibility of Brown Dog Ticks Transmitting Bartonella to Humans

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33001978/

Transmission of Bartonella henselae within Rhipicephalus sanguineus: Data on the Potential Vector Role of the Tick

Free article

Abstract

Bartonella henselae is a fastidious intraerythrocytic, gram-negative bacteria that causes cat scratch disease in humans. Ixodes ricinus (castor bean tick) has been confirmed to be a competent vector of B. henselae, and some indirect evidences from clinical cases and epidemiological studies also suggested that some other tick species, including Rhipicephalus sanguineus (brown dog tick, pantropical dog tick or kennel tick), may transmit the bacteria. B. henselae has been detected in R. sanguineus but no experimental investigations have been performed to evaluate the vector competency of this tick species regarding B. henselae transmission.

To this end, this work aimed to assess the transstadial transmission of B. henselae between larvae and nymphs of R. sanguineus as well as transmission by nymphs infected at the larval stage. Four hundred B. henselae negative larvae were fed with B. henselae-infected blood by using an artificial membrane feeding system.

After five days of feeding:

  • B. henselae was detected by PCR in 57.1% (8/14) of engorged larval pools
  • 66.7% (4/6) of semi-engorged larval pools
  • 66.7% (2/3) of larval feces pools
  • after molting, B. henselae DNA was also detected in 10% (1/10) of nymph pools, but not in tick feces
  • after a pre-fed step of nymphs infected at the larval stage on non-infected blood meal, B. henselae was detected by PCR in blood sample from the feeder, but no Bartonella colonies could be obtained from culture

These findings showed that B. henselae could be transstadial transmitted from R. sanguineus larvae to nymphs, and also suggest that these nymphs may retransmitted the bacteria through the saliva during their blood meal.

This is the first study that validated the artificial membrane feeding system for maintaining R. sanguineus tick colony. It shows the possibility of transstadial transmission of B. henselae from R. sanguineus larvae to nymphs.

_______________________

**Comment**

For decades now, ‘authorities’ have denied ticks can transmit Bartonella.  Since so many Lyme/MSIDS patients have Bartonella it’s always seemed highly likely to me that ticks play a role. This study adds to the growing body evidence that yes, in fact, ticks play a significant role.  For more:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/02/bartonella-found-in-ticks-biting-midges-and-moose/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/04/18/bartonella-vectors/

The other theory is that the tick’s ability to suppress the immune system reactivates a latent Bartonella infection already within the body.  Bartonella is prolific and can be obtained in many, many ways besides the bite or scratch of a cat:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/01/03/bartonella-treatment/

To date, Bartonella isn’t even on mainstream doctor’s radar for those bitten by ticks. This must change.  Bartonella can be a severe, chronic infection that causes untold damage both physically and mentally.

Psychiatric issues and Bartonella:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/08/30/new-case-report-neuropsychiatric-symptoms-and-bartonella-associated-skin-lesions/

Work is being done on the connection between Bartonella and cancer:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/09/11/bartonella-is-an-entity-often-diagnosed-in-breast-imaging-department-during-axullary-lymph-node-assessment/

Bartonella can cause encephalitis:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/30/bartonella-causing-encephalitis/

Great article showing the systemic manifestations:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2019/04/24/human-bartonellosis-an-underappreciated-public-health-problem/