Archive for the ‘research’ Category

Ticks, Armadillos, Leprosy & Humans

http://outbreaknewstoday.com/leprosy-research-look-role-ticks-vectors-disease-28480/

Research looking into the role of (Amblyomma sculptum) ticks as vectors of Leprosy in armadillos and humans is being completed by Dr. Kevin Macaluso, MS, PhD Professor in the Department of Pathobiological Sciences the LSU School of Veterinary Medicine.

He also recently won a Research to STOP Neglected Tropical Disease Transmission (R2STOP) award.

Published on Jan 28, 2017
Outbreak News This Week Radio Show interview with Dr. Macaluso

A certain species of tick may be able to transmit leprosy to humans.  The species of tick called Amblyomma sculptum, is commonly found on armadillos and recent research has shown 50% of armadillos are infested with these ticks with an average 6 ticks per armadillo.

Since the research group does not maintain a colony of this particular tick found on armadillos, Macaluso is instead using Amblyomma maculatum (Gulf Coast Tick) in the lab as a model even though it has never been reported to be on armadillos.  This Gulf Coast tick does bite humans & other vertebrate hosts.

Interestingly, the armadillo is the only animal model able to mimic the symptoms observed in humans.
Mycobacterium leprae is not cultivable in vitro but two animals: armadillos in the U.S., and red squirrels in the UK are natural reservoirs of the bacillus.

Results revealed M. leprae RNA and antigens persisting in the midgut and present in the ovaries of adult female A. sculptum at least 2 days after oral infection, and present in their progeny (eggs and larvae), which demonstrates the occurrence of transovarial transmission of this pathogen. Infected tick larvae were able to inoculate viable bacilli during blood-feeding on a rabbit. Moreover, following inoculation with M. leprae, the Ixodes scapularis embryo-derived tick cell line IDE8 supported a detectable increase in the number of bacilli for at least 20 days, presenting a doubling time of approximately 12 days. As far as we know, this is the first in vitro cellular system able to promote growth of M. leprae. Finally, we successfully transformed a clinical M. leprae isolate by inserting the reporter plasmid pCHERRY3; transformed bacteria infected and grew in IDE8 cells over a 2-month period.

Taken together, our data not only support the hypothesis that ticks may have the potential to act as a reservoir and/or vector of leprosy, but also suggest the feasibility of technological development of tick cell lines as a tool for large-scale production of M. leprae bacteria, as well as describing for the first time a method for their transformation.

The author concludes that this new methodology will assist in screening of new leprosy drugs.

All of this is fascinating to consider since there has been a recent outbreak of leprosy in Florida as well as the fact that some leprosy drugs, Dapsone, and pyrazinamide (PZA) appear to be helping some Lyme patients.  In this study, a 7-8 week protocol of double dose dapsone combination therapy resulted in remission in 50% of patients for one year or longer.  

In fact, Dr. Horowitz reports that the Dapsone and PZA protocols have been the most effective treatment additions for resistant Lyme and autoimmune symptoms, with PZA being the most effective for dermatological manifestations of Bahcet’s and arthritic/granulomatous changes.

So the questions begging to be asked: are ticks playing a role in these leprosy outbreaks AND is leprosy playing a role in Lyme/MSIDS which could be explained by the success of mycobacterium drugs in some patients?

Category:

Lyme, research, Ticks, Transmission

Sit Down Science

Recently a train of articles have come out on how research and medicine have been hijacked and are completely being driven by an unholy alliance with Industry, government, and University research facilities.  Besides being unethical, which should be troublesome on its own, it causes patient suffering.  A recent example of this is a study which tested “how persuasive messaging affects COVID-19 vaccine uptake intentions”.  They took the best performing messages and tested them on a nationally representative sample, and then proceeded to use this crafted propaganda and weaponized it against an unsuspecting public to guilt them into taking an experimental gene therapy injection.  This also proves that the anger towards the unvaccinated was planned, intentional psychological manipulation, all on the taxpayer’s dime.  The University study even required a ethics exemption by the University.  So if ‘the powers that be’ can conduct a study to see which pressure points work best and then carefully craft mountains of propaganda funded by the taxpayer to turn family and friends against one another, ponder what else “science” can do.

Please see this news story where Dr. Martin Kulldorff and Dr. Scott Atlas explain how Universities and NIH, due to an unhealthy financial relationship, have had a moral and ethical lapse, and actually lead the medical cartel. Anyone who doesn’t conform gets tarred and feathered. 

Sit Down Science

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2017/01/17/corporations-manipulating-research-discredit-scientists.aspx  Written in full by Dr. Mercola, Jan. 17, 2017.  Used with permission.

Industry funded “science” has tainted our world and turned science-based evidence into science-biased propaganda. Universities are laundering money through foundations to intentionally hide relationships, while scientists secretly nurture their relationships with corporate executives.

Negative outcomes go unpublished, the peer review process is so weak only studies that challenge industry interests are heavily scrutinized (usually by scientists hired by corporate public relations firms). Media is paid handsomely to ensure the public that “the science is settled,” especially when corporate liability is a primary concern.

Raw data is held captive, conflicts of interest are not fully disclosed and studies are designed to specifically obtain a desired outcome.

It’s certainly no secret that academic research is often funded by corporations. Academia often claims that such funding allows for innovation and does not influence the outcome of the studies. Industry, too, claims that such relationships do not influence the scientific process.

Syngenta spokesman Luke Gibbs even told The New York Times, “Syngenta does not pressure academics to draw conclusions and allows unfettered and independent submission of any papers generated from commissioned research.”1

James Cresswell, Ph.D., a pollination ecology researcher with the University of Exeter in England, had a different take on the matter, however. He spoke openly to the Times about his relationship with the pesticide giant, which included Syngenta-funded research into what’s causing bee colonies to die.

Despite having reservations about receiving corporate funding, he did accept it, and soon after began to see the effects of this supposedly independent relationship. “The last thing I wanted to do was get in bed with Syngenta,” Cresswell told the Times.

“I’m no fan of intensive agriculture [but] … absolutely they influenced what I ended up doing on the project.“2

University Pressured Researchers to Accept Corporate Money

Cresswell’s foray into the world of corporate-funded research started when his initial research caused him to question whether neonicotinoid pesticides were to blame for bee deaths.

The chemicals, which are produced by Bayer and Syngenta, have been implicated in the decline of bees, particularly in commercially bred species like honeybees and bumblebees (though they’ve been linked to population changes in wild bees as well). In 2012, Syngenta offered to fund further research by Cresswell on the link.

It was an offer Cresswell felt he couldn’t refuse. “I was pressured enormously by my university to take that money,” Cresswell told the Times. “It’s like being a traveling salesman and having the best possible sales market and telling your boss, ‘I’m not going to sell there.’ You can’t really do that.”3

A University of Exeter spokesman said up to 15 percent of academic research in Britain is funded by industry and that such sponsors are independently analyzed.4

In Cresswell’s case, he and Syngenta agreed on a study looking into eight potential causes of bee deaths, including a disease called varroosis, which is spread by varroa mites. Pesticide makers have argued that it’s the mites, not pesticides, that are killing bees, but Cresswell’s research didn’t find such a link.

Manipulating Research to Fit Industry Agendas

When he reported the findings to Syngenta, they pushed back, suggesting he tweak the study in various ways, such as looking at specific loss data in beehives instead of bee stock trends and focusing on data from specific countries or only in Europe, as opposed to worldwide.

After the parameters were changed, varroosis became a significant factor in bee colony losses, according to Cresswell’s research. It’s a clear-cut example of how scientific research can be easily manipulated to fit the sponsor’s agenda, a practice that’s well known to occur in pharmaceutical research.

In a tongue-in-cheek essay in the British Medical Journal, titled “HARLOT — How to Achieve Positive Results Without Actually Lying to Overcome the Truth,”5 it’s wittily explained exactly how industry insiders can help make their agenda, in this case drugs, look good:6

*”Pairing their drug with one that is known to work well. This can hide the fact that a tested medication is weak or ineffective.

*Truncating a trial. Drugmakers sometimes end a clinical trial when they have reason to believe that it is about to reveal widespread side effects or a lack of effectiveness — or when they see other clues that the trial is going south.

*Testing in very small groups. Drug-funded researchers also conduct trials that are too small to show differences between competitor drugs. Or they use multiple endpoints, then selectively publish only those that give favorable results, or they ‘cherry-pick’ positive-sounding results from multicenter trials.”

Industry Will Work to Discredit Scientists That Produce Unfavorable Findings

Some scientists willingly embrace corporate funding for their research, including James W. Simpkins, Ph.D., a professor at West Virginia University and the director of its Center for Basic and Translational Stroke Research. Simpkins has conducted studies for Syngenta regarding the herbicide atrazine.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) specifically cited research by Tyrone Hayes, Ph.D., an integrative biologist at the University of California, Berkeley, which found atrazine may be chemically castrating male frogs, essentially turning them into female frogs.

Hayes used to conduct research for Novartis, which eventually became Syngenta, but he resigned his contractor position after the company refused to allow him to publish the results of studies they had funded.

After resigning, he obtained independent funding to repeat the research, which was subsequently published and found that atrazine causes hermaphroditism in frogs. Syngenta attempted to discredit Hayes after the damaging research was released.

Meanwhile, Simpkins’ research, which he often co-authors with Syngenta scientists, continues to support atrazine’s supposed safety.

In addition to receiving funding for research, Simpkins also receives $250 an hour from Syngenta to consult on expert panels and is involved in a consulting venture with a Syngenta executive, according to the Times, after a Freedom of Information Act request.

Syngenta also donated $30,000 to a West Virginia University foundation to support Simpkins’ research.7

How University Foundations Hide Corporate Funds

A foundation is a non-governmental entity that is typically established to make grants to institutions or individuals for scientific and other purposes. Donors often give money to foundations instead of to the university itself, in part, because foundations have a fiduciary responsibility to represent the donors’ interest.

Also important, money given to a foundation can be kept private in order to protect the donor’s identity and does not become public record.8 It provides the perfect opportunity for industry corporations like Syngenta and others to pay for research on their behalf without receiving any public scrutiny for doing so.

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal, which is dedicated to improving higher education in North Carolina and the U.S., noted that many researchers refer to foundations as “slush funds” and “shadow corporations that too often operate in secrecy, despite spending taxpayers’ money [although foundations are often supported by donations as well].”9

It’s difficult to gain access to university foundations’ activities, contributions and spending. Records are often considered to be off limits, which means corporations can easily channel funds to the universities they believe will give them the best pay-off in the form of favorable research.

The James G. Martin Center for Academic Renewal quoted David Cuillier, Ph.D., director of the University of Arizona School of Journalism, as saying:10

“‘I think there are a ton of flags that need to be raised when it comes to university foundations. I think it’s one of the most underreported scams in America. It’s total slush fund … What a great way to hide money for a university.’

[Cuillier] said foundations have allowed universities to hide ‘wrongdoing, and questionable expenditures’ because foundations usually aren’t subject to public records laws, and may not comply with them in states where they are.”

Universities and foundations often claim that protecting donors’ privacy is key to keeping fundraising avenues open, but making such information public is in the public’s interest. Frank LoMonte, executive director of the Student Press Law Center in Washington, D.C., told the Columbia Journalism Review:11

“Whether donors are buying influence with public agencies is the information that the public needs the most … It’s ironic that the institutions that claim they’ll be unable to raise money if they can’t protect their donors’ privacy will engrave their donors’ names in 10-foot-high letters into the facades of buildings.”

Confidentiality Agreements Silence Researchers

Another tool used by corporations to control science is confidentiality agreements. Syngenta predecessor Ciba-Geigy had a confidentiality agreement with Switzerland-based agricultural research center Agroscope.

So when one of their researchers, Angelika Hilbeck, Ph.D., found problems with genetically engineered corn (specifically that it appeared to be toxic to a beneficial insect, lacewing, which eats other pests), the corporation ordered her to keep the results secret.12 Hilbeck ultimately published the results anyway, and her contract with Agroscope was not renewed. According to the Times:13

“Dr. Hilbeck continued as a university researcher and was succeeded at Agroscope by Jörg Romeis, [Ph.D.,] a scientist who had worked at Bayer and has since co-authored research with employees from Syngenta, DuPont and other companies. He has spent much of his career trying to debunk Dr. Hilbeck’s work [and has since become the leader of Agroscope’s biosafety research group].”

US Biotechnology Panel Financially Tied to Biotech Industry

Even government panels are not immune from industry ties. In fact, they’re prime targets for conflicts of interest. The latest scandal involves a panel studying biotechnology, which is expected to give advice to The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, which in turn provides policy guidance to the U.S. government. Of the 13 experts named to the panel, seven have potential conflicts of interest. This includes:14

Richard M. Amasino, Ph.D., professor of biochemistry at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who holds various biotechnology patents
Jeffrey Wolt, Ph.D., professor of agronomy and toxicology at Iowa State University, who has a commercial interest that violates the organization’s conflict of interest policy
Steven P. Bradbury, Ph.D., professor of environmental toxicology at Iowa State University, who owns a consulting firm that advises companies on biotechnology
Richard Murray, Ph.D., professor of bioengineering at the California Institute of Technology, who co-founded Synvitrobio, a synthetic biology (i.e., genetic engineering) start-up
Steven L. Evans, Ph.D., fellow in seeds discovery research and development at Dow AgroSciences, which has major interests in the biotechnology industry
Dietary Rules Influenced by Corporate-Funded Research

The tentacles of industry-funded research reach far and wide — even to your dinner table. In investigative journalist Gary Taubes’ new book, “The Case Against Sugar,” you can read how food companies manipulated research to make sugar a mainstay of Americans’ diets.

As it became increasingly clear that excess sugar was linked to rising rates of obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases, the Sugar Association, an industry trade group, stepped in to combat it by funding industry-friendly research and attacking the credibility of researchers that found otherwise.

Decades’ worth of research convincingly shows excess sugar damages your health, yet the sugar industry managed bury the evidence and cover it up with faux science that supports sugar as an important food. According to The Wall Street Journal:15

“These efforts were successful enough to influence the language of FDA [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] reports on sugar in 1977 and 1986, as well as the first government-compiled Dietary Guidelines, released in 1980, which unsurprisingly declared that fat caused disease.“

While scientific research is far from, well, an exact science, when industry funding is involved it may be virtually impossible for scientific truth to be heard. Whether the subject is sugar, pesticides or biotechnology is irrelevant. Although most researchers and sponsoring companies will insist the research is sound and unbiased, it’s well-known that industry-funded research almost always favors industry.

For more on how Science has been hijacked:

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/13/lyme-science-owned-by-good-ol-boys/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/19/cdc-denies-to-downplay-lyme-epidemic/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/02/fake-science/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/11/29/spider-attacks-cdc/

https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/08/04/vaccine-injuries-and-the-lyme-connection/

Category:

Activism, research

UWM – Center of Excellence Vector Borne Diseases

http://news.wisc.edu/cdc-awards-10-million-for-insect-borne-disease-center/

University of Madison-Wisconsin News

MADISON – The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has awarded $10 million to a consortium of Midwestern universities to establish a new research and training program to stem the spread of disease carried by vectors like ticks and mosquitoes.

The Upper Midwestern Center of Excellence in Vector Borne Diseases, http://grantome.com/grant/NIH/U01-CK000505-01 which will be led by University of Wisconsin–Madison medical entomologists Lyric Bartholomay and Susan Paskewitz, is aimed at elevating the understanding of vector borne diseases and improving public health response to diseases like Zika, West Nile and Lyme disease.

Part of a larger push by CDC to buttress the nation’s public health infrastructure to thwart vector borne diseases, including emerging diseases like Zika and West Nile, the new center will involve scientists – public health entomologists, epidemiologists, virologists and vector control experts – from UW–Madison, the University of Illinois, the University of Iowa, the University of Michigan and the Minnesota Department of Health.

A key objective of the new center, says Bartholomay, a professor of pathobiological sciences in the UW–Madison School of Veterinary Medicine, is to foster collaboration not only between university experts, but also with public health organizations at the local, state and federal levels. The goal, she explains, is to boost surveillance, prevention and response against the backdrop of a trend toward the emergence of new diseases and old diseases – like Zika and West Nile – in regions far from their places of origin.

The Midwest, according to Paskewitz and Bartholomay, is a “national hotspot for disease emergence and endemic transmission of vector borne disease.”

“There is a trend toward new emerging disease,” says Paskewitz, who chairs UW–Madison’s entomology department. “We’re seeing invasions of new species and pathogens. It is these new things moving around.”

The deer tick is one of the most important disease vectors in Wisconsin and will be under the microscope as a new center for vector borne disease takes shape at UW–Madison.

For example, not only are new tick species such as the lone star tick showing up in places like Wisconsin, places where they didn’t live before, but they are carrying a wider variety of disease. When Paskewitz joined the UW–Madison faculty in 1991, Lyme disease was the only known tick-borne disease endemic to Wisconsin. Today, she says there are at least half a dozen diseases that can be transmitted by the blood-sucking arachnids found in the Badger State.

There are likely a number of reasons why new vector borne diseases are on the rise in the Midwest. Changes to the landscape such as deforestation and urbanization, shifts in animal populations such as white-tailed deer, and changes in climate all are likely contributors, according to the Wisconsin scientists. Another possibility, says Paskewitz, is that scientists are simply getting better at finding new invasive species of mosquitoes and ticks and their bacterial and viral pathogens.

The new CDC-supported center will have three primary objectives:

*Grow the cadre of public health entomologists. Increased opportunities for graduate training in the field, and a new certificate program that will equip students to better identify vectors, conduct disease surveillance and use the appropriate tools to reduce insect populations.
*Create a network of scientists, mosquito control, and public health experts and officials at the local and state levels to better coordinate and facilitate surveillance and response to outbreaks of disease.
*Conduct research to improve and devise new methods to predict disease emergence and outbreaks as well as to optimize surveillance networks and pathogen detection. Research will also focus on evaluating and improving methods for controlling disease vectors like mosquitoes and ticks, with the ultimate goal of reducing human risk and exposure.
“Our vision is to provide training at all levels, including the undergraduate, graduate and professional levels,” says Bartholomay. “We hope we can provide a conduit of really well trained people who will be positioned to respond to outbreaks.”

The certificate program and training opportunities will be available at all of the partner institutions.

Research, say Paskewitz and Bartholomay, will be essential, as changing environmental conditions allow vectors and the diseases they carry to exploit new geographic regions and susceptible human and animal populations. “We don’t want to look for only what we expect,” explains Bartholomay. “We want to look for new diseases and understand the threats they pose.”

UW-Madison, she adds, is well positioned to do this through existing faculty, staff and technical resources, such as next-generation gene sequencing technologies that can be used to identify viral and bacterial pathogens associated with ticks and mosquitoes.

The new center will also have an outreach component. The idea, say Bartholomay and Paskewitz, will be to give the public access to region-specific information about tick and mosquito activity, ways to accurately identify vectors, and information about the pathogens transmitted by ticks and mosquitoes.

***If you are from Wisconsin, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, or Minnesota, please call and make sure that a preponderance of this money is going into tick research.  When I spoke at the Wisconsin capital a year ago at the Evidence Based Health Policy Project:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/03/04/health-policy-recap/ (please read), I spent considerable time discussing the plight of Lyme patients. That we are co-infected with numerous pathogens which make our cases far more complex than most realize. I spoke of borrelia, alone, and that it is pleomorphic with three shapes it can change into at will and that proper treatment needs to address this complexity and that 21 days of doxycycline, the current CDC standard of care is like throwing sand into the ocean. I spoke of 3 generations of Wisconsinites living under the same roof – all infected with MSIDS (multi systemic infectious disease syndrome). I explained that the myth that Lyme (borrelia) only causes a little joint pain and fatigue needs to be dispelled and that there is significant cognitive and psychological impairment with some suffering with severe anxiety, rage, confusion, depression, and memory loss.

I made it clear that Wisconsin should be focusing on ticks and the diseases they carry – NOT ZIKA, which according to Susan Paskewitz, Professor and Researcher, Medical Entomology Laboratory, UW Madison, Northern mosquitos can not even carry Zika. They have found some West Nile in mosquitos here.

 

 

 

Category:

Lyme, mosquitoes, research, Ticks, Zika

Lyme Vaccine to be Tested on Humans

http://www.thevaccinereaction.org/2017/01/fda-gives-green-light-to-test-lyme-disease-vaccine-on-humans/  by Patrice La Vigne and Barbara Loe FisherPublished January 25, 2017

Reprinted here:

Valneva’s preclinical study on mice reveal protection against Lyme disease transmitted by ticks among the majority of Borrelia bacteria strains.
Clinical trials for a new Lyme disease vaccine will be conducted in the U.S. and Belgium after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Union’s Clinical Trial Application gave Biotech firm Valneva of France clearance to begin Phase I testing.1

Valneva is developing VLA15, a hexavalent, protein subunit-based vaccine for protection against Lyme’s disease, a tick-transmitted bacterial infection characterized by fever, headache, fatigue and skin rash that, if left untreated, can spread to the joints, heart and nervous system and cause severe, chronic health problems.2 The vaccine targets the outer surface protein A (OspA), one of the most dominant antigens expressed by the Borrelia bacteria transmitted by a tick.1

The serotypes expressed by the U.S. species of the Borrelia bacteria differ from the European version of the bacteria. In fact, there are six types of the proteins. Valneva’s vaccine aims to target all different strains of OspA and teach the body’s immune system to recognize the bacteria and launch an attack.3

First Lyme Vaccine Withdrawn After Injury Claims
This is not the first time a company has pursued a Lyme disease vaccine candidate, although there are no vaccines currently on the market.

In 1998, the FDA approved LYMErix, manufactured by SmithKline Beecham (now GlaxoSmithKline) of the United Kingdom. Patients received three doses of the vaccine, which was manufactured using a recombinant Borellia burgdorferi outer surface protein (OspPA). The company claimed an effectiveness rate of 80 percent.

However, almost immediately after the vaccine was licensed and distributed, there were complaints that LYMErix vaccine was causing Lyme disease symptoms and in some cases was causing permanently disabling brain and immune system damage, including treatment resistant autoimmune arthritis.The biological mechanism hypothesis was that the outer surface protein A (OspA), which was the antigenic component of the LYMErix vaccine, induced autoimmunity in genetically susceptible individuals, including high levels of autoantibody to OspA in their synovial fluid. On Jan. 31, 2001, the FDA advisory committee held a public meeting to review the evidence for the vaccine’s safety and public comments were made by physicians, research scientists, individuals alleging LYMErix injury and attorneys.4

GSK voluntarily withdrew LYMErix vaccine from the market in 2002 citing uncertainty about risk of the disease and low public demand. However, they stopped producing the vaccine soon after a class action lawsuit involving hundreds of patients, who claimed they were injured by LYMErix, was settled out of court. GSK denied the vaccine caused harm and the vaccine industry and public health officials placed blame on the media for publicizing reports of vaccine reactions.

Other Lyme Vaccines Failed to Materialize
Pasteur Merieux Connaught of France moved its vaccine through to Phase III testing with positive results, however the company never sought licensure, citing a small market size.5 Baxter of Deerfield, IL was also recently developing a potential vaccine candidate against Lyme, but similarly abandoned the initiative.6

Seeing an experimental vaccine through to Phase III testing can cost a company more than $1 billion. About 86 percent of experimental drugs do not clear Phase I and II studies.

Valneva Vaccine Targets Six OspA Serotypes
Valneva’s preclinical study on mice reveal protection against Lyme disease transmitted by ticks among the majority of Borrelia bacteria strains.7

Phase I human trials at a U.S. site and a Belgium site will enroll 180 patients aged 18 to 40 years. The single-blind, partially randomized, dose escalation study will focus on evaluating VLA15’s safety and tolerability among different dose and formulation groups and time points. Researchers will measure immunogenicity by observing IgG antibodies against six OspA serotypes.

Call for Extensive Safety Testing of New Lyme Vaccine
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, approximately 300,000 Americans and 85,000 Europeans develop Lyme disease annually. The CDC states that Lyme disease is one of the fastest growing vector-borne infections in the U.S. and Congress made development of a new Lyme disease vaccine a funding priority in the 21st Century Cures Act passed at the end of 2016.8 9

Two researchers warned several years ago that new Lyme disease vaccines using the outer surface protein (OspA) must be thoroughly tested for safety. They said, “Any new Lyme vaccine will need extensive safety testing, more transparency about side-effects, and improved patient communication to allay patient concerns about safety. Let’s hope that history does not repeat itself because Lyme vaccine manufacturers, regulators, and promoters once again underestimate or ignore justified patient concerns about Lyme vaccination risks.”10

Please read Dr. Stricker’s comment about the vaccine:

Safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of Borrelia burgdorferi outer surface protein A (OspA) vaccine: A meta-analysis.

Zhao H.J Infect Dev Ctries. 2017.1 comment

Raphael Stricker2017 Feb 08 1:33 p.m.edited

Another Lyme OspA Vaccine Whitewash

The meta-analysis by Zhao and colleagues comes to the conclusion that “the OspA vaccine against Lyme disease is safe and its immunogenicity and efficacy have been verified.” The authors arrive at this sunny conclusion by excluding 99.6% of published articles that demonstrate potential problems with the OspA vaccine. Furthermore, the authors ignore peer-reviewed studies, FDA regulatory meetings and legal proceedings that point to major problems with OspA vaccine safety (1-3). This whitewash bodes ill for future Lyme vaccine candidates because it fosters disregard for vaccine safety among Lyme vaccine manufacturers and mistrust among potential Lyme vaccinees.

References 1. Stricker RB (2008) Lymerix® risks revisited. Microbe 3: 1–2. 2. Marks DH (2011) Neurological complications of vaccination with outer surface protein A (OspA). Int J Risk Saf Med. 23: 89–96. 3. Stricker RB, Johnson L (2014) Lyme disease vaccination: safety first. Lancet Infect Dis. 14(1):12.

 

For more on Lyme Vaccines:  https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2016/08/04/vaccine-injuries-and-the-lyme-connection/

 

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Lyme Vaccine, research, vaccines

NTZ – Game Changer for Lyme Patients?

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nitazoxanide-known-killer-parasites-borrelia-cysts-booster-ozimek?trk=v feed&lipi=urn%3Ali%3Apage%3Ap_flagship3_feed%3BjOKiznIW%2BSs5upN50KaGRg%3D%3D

Is nitazoxanide (NTZ)- a real game changer for Lyme patients?
Written by:  Wojciech Piotr Ozimek, independent lecturer and researcher specialized in parasitic and vector-borne diseases.  Used with permission.

Nitazoxanide, a thiazolide compound, and its desacetyl derivative, tizoxanide, have antimicrobial properties against protozoa, cestodes, nematodes, trematodes, bacteria and viruses.

A retrospective review of charts of patients treated with nitazoxanide for infections caused by giardia lamblia, cryptosporidium parvum, blastocystis hominis, entamoeba histolytica, cyclospora, isospora and babesia caused infections demonstrated it’s high efficacy.

Unfortunately most of the studies showed that nitazoxanide is rather ineffective for the treatment of trichomoniasis.

Because the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection may be jeopardized by metronidazole resistance, nitazoxanide and tizoxanide were tested in vitro and in vivo studies. Conclusions? It may be used as a single agent in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori and other Campylobacter sp. caused infections. It is also effective against Clostridium difficile caused infections.

There has been a study that claims there is some limited evidence for efficacy for SIBO (small intestinal bacterial overgrowth) in the context of an open label study, but no systematic review and all claims should be taken lightly.

Development of resistance to the two main classes of drugs used to treat intestinal nematode infections of humans has been reported. We need new and more effective drugs and ways to improve the efficacy of the old drugs. And again the promising alternative drug is nitazoxanide (NTZ). NTZ shown to have therapeutic activity against nematode (ascaris), cestode (taenia, hymenolepsis) and trematode (fasciola) infections. In addition NTZ combines synergistically with other classes of anthelmintic drugs, i.e. albendazole and pyrantel, making it a good candidate for further studies on its use in drug combination therapy of parasitic infections.

Lateef et al.. conducted a study in India that evaluated the effectiveness of nitazoxanide in the treatment of beef tapeworm (Taenia saginata) infection. They concluded that nitazoxanide is a well-tolerated drug for the treatment of niclosamide- and praziquantel-resistant beef tapeworm (Taenia saginata) infection.

It is also considered to be a “cyst busting” drug by some researchers, so can theoretically impact Borrelia, too. For these reasons, it is one of my favorite drugs, and in my opinion it should have a broader application for Lyme disease patients.

As if the above-mentioned benefits of nitazoxanide weren’t enough for some skeptics, the drug also impacts biofilm formation. This was shown by research published in Oxford’s Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy, in a study entitled, “Nitazoxanide inhibits biofilm formation by Staphylococcus epidermidis by blocking accumulation on surfaces.” Several other studies also demonstrate nitazoxanide’s inhibition of biofilm forming.

And lastly, nitazoxanide has even been shown to inhibit numerous viruses, including hepatitis B and C viruses, rotavirus and influenza A virus (in vitro).

To summarize, nitazoxanide can be used to kill protozoa, cestodes, nematodes, trematodes, bacteriae (incl. cysts & biofilm forms) and viruses.

It’s no wonder that Lyme patients, who are often afflicted with many of mentioned above infections, can feel so much better as a result of using nitazoxanide.

Nitazoxanide should be one of the most multi-talented and broadly applicable drugs available to Lyme sufferers, and I consider it to be one of the most important medicines presented in the last years.

Nitazoxanide is an effective, inexpensive, and generally safe and well tolerated medicine. In the clinical trials no serious adverse events were reported. Adverse events occur in less than 1% of the patients but physician monitoring is still advisable.

Nitazoxanide is sold under the brand names Nizonide, Nitaxide, Nitax, Zox, Netazox, Niazid, Toza, Daxon, Dexidex, Kidonax, Mitafar, Pacovanton, Paramix, Alinia, Adonid, NT-TOX, Nitamax,and Annita.

 

Category:

C-diff, Lyme, research, Treatment, Viruses