Archive for the ‘research’ Category

Borrelia burgdorferi: Methods and Protocols

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-0716-3561-2#about-this-book

Borrelia burgdorferi: Methods and Protocols

2024

Editors:
Leona Gilbert
  • Includes cutting-edge methods and protocols
  • Provides step-by-step detail essential for reproducible results
  • Contains key notes and implementation advice from the experts

About this book

This volume covers the latest advancements and techniques used to understand the fastidious bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, and its significance in infectious disorders by combining both conventional and cutting-edge approaches. This book covers diverse topics, including direct detection, diagnostic methods, immune response analysis, alternative model systems, advanced proteomics, social media analysis, and clinical research. It also discusses unconventional wet lab research such as content analysis, the use of ChatGPT, clinical algorithms for chronic Lyme, establishment of a pregnancy Lyme disease biobank, and investigates Lyme in pregnant women. Written in the highly successful Methods in Molecular Biology series format, chapters include introductions to their respective topics, lists of the necessary materials and reagents, step-by-step, readily reproducible laboratory protocols, and tips on troubleshooting and avoiding known pitfalls.

Cutting-edge and comprehensive, Borrelia burgdorferi: Methods and Protocols encompasses a wide range of techniques and caters to scientists from various disciplines and career stages, such as cell and molecular biologists, statisticians, and clinical researchers.

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Pregnancy, research

AMA Lyme Disease: A Clinician Toolkit (Part 2)

I must have missed Part 1.  Here it is:  https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u/32867249

In short, the CDC gave the AMA 5M in taxpayer dollars to come up with an IDSA Toolkit to improve care for patients with prolonged symptoms and concerns about Lyme disease.

Hopefully you can see the inherent problems with this.  Once again, the wolf is being asked how to take care of the chickens.  Dr. Paul Auwaerter particularly appears to speak out of both sides of his mouth.

Further, the American Medical Association (AMA) is a completely corrupt, tyrannical institution.  It opposes free speech, instructs doctors to deceive, is behind persecuting doctors who think for themselves, was found GUILTY in a court of law of conspiring against chiropractic, and has completely monopolized medicine with the help of the Rockefellers.

https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u/32919062?

American Medical Association Lyme Disease: A Clinician Toolkit (Part 2)

Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH, United States
Sep 25, 2024

The letter below is a follow-up to the previous petition update: https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u/32867249

———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “pauwaert@jhmi.edu” <pauwaert@jhmi.edu>, “pgauwaerter@gmail.com” <pgauwaerter@gmail.com>
Cc: “cbb0@cdc.gov” <cbb0@cdc.gov>, “jjohnson@genevausa.org” <jjohnson@genevausa.org>, “theerhisamariee@gmail.com” <theerhisamariee@gmail.com>, “jaucott@jhmi.edu” <jaucott@jhmi.edu>, “jraitt1@stanford.edu” <jraitt1@stanford.edu>, “dclauw@med.umich.edu” <dclauw@med.umich.edu>, “john.leong@tufts.edu” <john.leong@tufts.edu>, “avindra.nath@nih.gov” <avindra.nath@nih.gov>, “charles.chiu@ucsf.edu” <charles.chiu@ucsf.edu>, “elliot.cowan@partnersindiagnostics.com” <elliot.cowan@partnersindiagnostics.com>, “beth.jaworski@nih.hhs.gov” <beth.jaworski@nih.hhs.gov>, “roger@lundquist.org” <roger@lundquist.org>, “rachele.hendricks.sturrup@duke.edu” <rachele.hendricks.sturrup@duke.edu>, “info@lymebiobank.org” <info@lymebiobank.org>, “lorrainejohnson@outlook.com” <lorrainejohnson@outlook.com>, “wendyadams1@gmail.com” <wendyadams1@gmail.com>, “Leith.States@hhs.gov” <Leith.States@hhs.gov>, “tindall.matt@gmail.com” <tindall.matt@gmail.com>, “stacie.hudgens@clinoutsolutions.com” <stacie.hudgens@clinoutsolutions.com>, “raymond_dattwyler@nymc.edu” <raymond_dattwyler@nymc.edu>, “timothy.sellati@globallymealliance.org” <timothy.sellati@globallymealliance.org>, “nklimas@nova.edu” <nklimas@nova.edu>, “kester@genevausa.org” <kester@genevausa.org>, “nicole@nicolemalachowski.com” <nicole@nicolemalachowski.com>, “marcom@genevausa.org” <marcom@genevausa.org>, “stephen.gluckman@pennmedicine.upenn.edu” <stephen.gluckman@pennmedicine.upenn.edu>, “epocratesMedia@athenahealth.com” <epocratesMedia@athenahealth.com>, “epocrates@athenahealth.com” <epocrates@athenahealth.com>, “achen@mathematica-mpr.com” <achen@mathematica-mpr.com>, “info@mathematica-mpr.com” <info@mathematica-mpr.com>, “pdecker@mathematica-mpr.com” <pdecker@mathematica-mpr.com>, “lwx1@cdc.gov” <lwx1@cdc.gov>, “frederick.chen@ama-assn.org” <frederick.chen@ama-assn.org>, “gmarx@cdc.gov” <gmarx@cdc.gov>, “acoyne@mathematica-mpr.com” <acoyne@mathematica-mpr.com>, “jconstantine@mathematica-mpr.com” <jconstantine@mathematica-mpr.com>, “ctrenholm@mathematica-mpr.com” <ctrenholm@mathematica-mpr.com>, “tbarnes@mathematica-mpr.com” <tbarnes@mathematica-mpr.com>, “sboudreau@mathematica-mpr.com” <sboudreau@mathematica-mpr.com>, “jdevallance@mathematica-mpr.com” <jdevallance@mathematica-mpr.com>, “sara.berg@ama-assn.org” <sara.berg@ama-assn.org>, “jack.resneck@ucsf.edu” <jack.resneck@ucsf.edu>, “jack.resneck@ama-assn.org” <jack.resneck@ama-assn.org>, “todd.unger@ama-assn.org” <todd.unger@ama-assn.org>, “jon.burkhart@ama-assn.org” <jon.burkhart@ama-assn.org>, “karen.kmetik@ama-assn.org” <karen.kmetik@ama-assn.org>, “sanjay.desai@ama-assn.org” <sanjay.desai@ama-assn.org>, “aaguilar@webmd.net” <aaguilar@webmd.net>, “DFlapan@Medscape.net” <DFlapan@Medscape.net>, “lkane@medscape.net” <lkane@medscape.net>, “gamiller@medscape.net” <gamiller@medscape.net>, “dolmos@webmd.net” <dolmos@webmd.net>, “sarah.wright@webmd.net” <sarah.wright@webmd.net>, “editor2@webmd.net” <editor2@webmd.net>, “kg@kirstengillibrand.com” <kg@kirstengillibrand.com>, “yzhang207@zju.edu.cn” <yzhang207@zju.edu.cn>, “jonathan.kanter@usdoj.gov” <jonathan.kanter@usdoj.gov>, “Antitrust.ATR@usdoj.gov” <Antitrust.ATR@usdoj.gov>, “gheltzer@mwe.com” <gheltzer@mwe.com>, “albert.sambat@usdoj.gov” <albert.sambat@usdoj.gov>, “ddutko@rustyhardin.com” <ddutko@rustyhardin.com>, “kspeer@rustyhardin.com” <kspeer@rustyhardin.com>, “katrina.rouse@usdoj.gov” <katrina.rouse@usdoj.gov>, “loppenheimer@oppenheimer-law.com” <loppenheimer@oppenheimer-law.com>

Date: 09/25/2024 9:20 AM EDT
Subject: Re: Improving Care for Patients with Prolonged Symptoms and Concerns about Lyme Disease: A Clinician Toolkit

Dr Auwaerter,

While we wait for your reply to my previous inquiry dated Sept 2nd, I would like to call attention to the following publication you coauthored with Johns Hopkins colleague Dr. Ying Zhang in 2014:

Identification of novel activity against Borrelia burgdorferi persisters using an FDA approved drug library – PubMed
Jie Feng, Ting Wang, Wanliang Shi, Shuo Zhang, David Sullivan, Paul G Auwaerter & Ying Zhang

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26038747/

Excerpt:

Findings that suggest the continued presence of B. burgdorferi in some form indicate that current Lyme disease treatment may not sufficiently eliminate B. burgdorferi persisters or that the immune system fails to clear persisting organisms or bacterial debris, which may be the underlying cause for those who suffer from unresolved Lyme disease symptoms.
Recent quote from Dr. Ying Zhang: (Now with Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou, Zhejiang, China)

“We’re dealing with a very unique situation here. The current Lyme antibiotic does not completely eradicate Borrelia bacteria. We found this dandelion phenomenon. The mower is equivalent to the antibiotics, that chopped off the top part. But because the root, the possessor, is still there, they can grow back. You need drugs targeting both parts in order to more effectively cure this persistent form of the disease.”

Dr Auwaerter,

These findings appear to be missing from your recorded interview on the AMA website: “Toolkit to Improve Care for Patients with Prolonged Symptoms and Concerns about Lyme Disease”

For the record there are seven published studies finding Dapsone effective in treating chronic Lyme disease as reported by Dr. Richard Horowitz and colleagues: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

In contrast Dr. Auwaerter, you were the lead author who published the hit piece in the Lancet Infectious Diseases condemning these physicians:

Antiscience and ethical concerns associated with advocacy of Lyme disease (2011)
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21867956/

The 5-million-dollar grant given to the AMA by the CDC for this so-called “Clinician Toolkit” would have been better spent on validating antimicrobials that cure chronic Lyme. But then again if we had the correct treatment who would opt for Pfizer’s Lyme vaccine currently in phase III clinical trials ready to roll out in 2026?

Questions:

Which CDC employee/academic stands to benefit financially (patent royalties etc.) from the soon to be released OspA Pfizer Lyme vaccine and what role have these individuals played (if any) in the ongoing collusion to deny chronic Lyme disease? 

Carl Tuttle
Independent Researcher
Hudson, NH

Cc: Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, Attorney Katrina Rouse
Attorneys for the United States Antitrust Division

Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter Announces Task Force on Health Care Monopolies and Collusion
https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/assistant-attorney-general-jonathan-kanter-announces-task-force-health-care-monopolies-and

References:

1. Comparison of the Efficacy of Longer versus Shorter Pulsed High Dose Dapsone Combination Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Lyme Disease/Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome with Bartonellosis and Associated Coinfections.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37764145/

2. Effect of dapsone alone and in combination with intracellular antibiotics against the biofilm form of B. burgdorferi.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32993780/

3. Efficacy of Short-Term High Dose Pulsed Dapsone Combination Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Lyme Disease/Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS) and Associated Co-Infections: A Report of Three Cases and Literature Review.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35884166/

4. Combining Double-Dose and High-Dose Pulsed Dapsone Combination Therapy for Chronic Lyme Disease/Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome and Co-Infections, Including Bartonella: A Report of 3 Cases and a Literature Review.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/38792737/

5. Efficacy of Double-Dose Dapsone Combination Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Lyme Disease/Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS) and Associated Co-infections: A Report of Three Cases and Retrospective Chart Review.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33105645/

6. Precision medicine: retrospective chart review and data analysis of 200 patients on dapsone combination therapy for chronic Lyme disease/post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome: part 1.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30863136/

7. Precision Medicine: The Role of the MSIDS Model in Defining, Diagnosing, and Treating Chronic Lyme Disease/Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome and Other Chronic Illness: Part 2.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30400667/
Previous inquiry to Auwaerter dated Sept 2nd:
https://www.change.org/p/the-us-senate-calling-for-a-congressional-investigation-of-the-cdc-idsa-and-aldf/u/32867249

Category:

Activism, Lyme, research, Treatment

Researchers Say New Lyme Test Can Detect Lyme Within 14 Days of Infection

https://www.lymedisease.org/detecting-lyme-within-14-days/

Researchers say this test can detect Lyme within 14 days of infection

Focus on Lyme and Aces Diagnostics Inc. has announced a breakthrough in Lyme disease diagnosis with a new test that detects the disease at all stages, including the crucial first 14 days post-infection, with over 90% accuracy.

Aces Diagnostics is developing and manufacturing this test, aiming for FDA clearance to make it accessible to all patients.

LymeSeek™, developed through a collaboration between Tulane University and Focus on Lyme, combines advanced biomarker research from Tulane’s Monica Embers and nine years of intensive work funded by Focus on Lyme. Enhanced by machine learning, this innovative diagnostic promises to reshape Lyme disease detection.

“Previous tests have been less than 50% accurate, especially in the early stages,” said Tammy Crawford, CEO of Aces Diagnostics. “This has led to countless patients being misdiagnosed or undiagnosed, resulting in prolonged suffering. LymeSeek will change that, providing a reliable diagnostic tool that can save lives.”

Aces Diagnostics Team

The CDC reports that nearly 500,000 people in the U.S. are diagnosed with Lyme disease each year. Globally, 14.5% of the population is affected, with many suffering from chronic symptoms due to delayed diagnosis. A Johns Hopkins study revealed that 38% of Lyme patients continue to experience symptoms six months post-diagnosis, underscoring the need for improved testing.

Simplifying diagnosis

“Current Lyme testing involves multiple steps, with results taking over a week and requiring subjective interpretation,” said Aces Diagnostics Co-Founder Holly Ahern.

“LymeSeek™ will replace this cumbersome process, enabling earlier diagnosis and reducing chronic illness caused by delayed or missed diagnoses.”

Crawford and Ahern are personally invested in this mission, both having daughters who battled Lyme disease. “An early diagnosis could have spared them years of suffering,” said Crawford.

Aces Diagnostics Inc. brings together a team with over 50 years of combined experience in Lyme disease research, backed by a distinguished advisory board that includes experts from Johns Hopkins University, Columbia University, and Tulane University. The company is already advancing development and manufacturing efforts and pursuing early FDA clearance to make LymeSeek™ available to the public by the third quarter of 2026.

SOURCE: Focus on Lyme

______________

**Comment**

Testing has been and continues to be a major problem with Lyme/MSIDS for numerous reasons, one of the biggest being the fact many are coinfected with numerous pathogens that mainstream medicine and research never discuss.  These coinfected patients are some of the sickest but are kicked to the curb because testing doesn’t reveal what’s inside them.

While this new test is a step in the right direction, it still doesn’t address those who have been infected for decades or those who are coinfected.  It’s like comparing apples to oranges and until these issues are addressed, it remains a foreign language to mainstream medicine.

The Johns Hopkins study showing nearly 40% go on to suffer symptoms 6 months post-diagnosis is still low in my opinion due to the fact so many are never diagnosed in the first place and so many are infected with multiple things that are never picked up on testing.

But, one must remain hopeful……

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing

A US Federal Agency’s Definitive Report on How Fluoride Harms Children’s Brains. What Now?

By Leo Cashman

9/19/24

Those who followed the multi-year fluoride trial saga know that the government’s much touted report on whether fluoride harms children’s brain has finally been released and seen the light of day. Getting it released at this late date wasn’t easy, as there seemed to be efforts to delay it and suppress it. It had been peer reviewed again, and reviewed again, to a farcical degree. 

Release of report halted 

Then, the report was finally completed and slated to be released in May of 2022. Its release was mysteriously halted, despite the fact that the judge in the fluoride trial was waiting for its release for more than a year, and it was supposedly needed in order to provide pivotal evidence in the trial after years of delay and waiting. Thanks to FOIA requests brought by the plaintiff’s attorneys, it was revealed that the release of the report had been secretly blocked by an order from someone high in the public health hierarchy: Admiral Levine, assistant Secretary of Health. The judge, exasperated, ordered that the preliminary version of the report be released to the court, so that its conclusions could be brought into evidence and the trial could be completed. This, on his part, allowed the final leg of the trial to be completed this past February; however, it is September, and we all are still awaiting a verdict. 

18 of 19 studies show impact on intelligence 

Now that we have the official National Toxicology Program (NTP) report, it is time to ask: what does it say? Are there any surprises to be found in it? In its description of the scientific details, the report did find confirmation, as expected, of fluoride as being toxic to children’s brains. Of the 19 highest quality studies, 18 of them found that higher levels of fluoride exposure were significantly associated with lower intelligence in children. But there were some statements in the report that will give the dental establishment something to cling to: the clearest evidence that fluoride is a brain neurotoxin was found at levels of 1.5 parts per million, which is higher than the 0.7 parts per million that the CDC now recommends for water fluoridation.

Multiplicity of factors add to fluoride exposure 

But a counter to that argument is that total fluoride intake – with some coming from food, toothpastes, drugs, and pollution – varies greatly, and susceptibility varies greatly too, with some people being harmed more easily than others. So, each side of the fluoride debate will still have talking points in the ongoing argument over fluoridation, and the big media will obviously favor the vested interests that make up the fluoride promoters. 

Fluoride in the food supply and pharmaceutical increase exposure 

Those who have followed the fluoride issue know how broad and powerful those players on the fluoride team are. Fluoride is found at much higher levels in many beverages and foods than it is in fluoridated water. So Big Ag and Big Food want the fluoride cover-up. Big Pharma knows that about ten per-cent of its drugs use fluorine as an ingredient, including Prozac and the notorious antibiotic, Cipro (They both carry FDA black box warnings). Heavy industry, from steel to coal, aluminum factories and phosphate fertilizer plants pose a hazard to workers and nearby communities alike.

ADA and media can’t admit they were wrong 

In particular, the phosphate fertilizer plants are capturing their hazardous fluoride fumes to keep them out of the environment and then have the gall to sell them to chemical companies who peddle them to city water works, which put the toxic waste into the water people drink – that’s what is called water fluoridation. So heavy industry does want to let go of the myths about fluoride being “safe and effective.” Big dentistry, as with the American Dental Association doesn’t want to admit that it was profoundly wrong over the last 80 years in insisting that every dental student in every dental school be taught that fluoride use and water fluoridation are fundamentally needed to assure children’s dental health. Big media itself has a stake in the debate, because it doesn’t want to admit that it was profoundly negligent in its coverage of the fluoride issue over the last 80 years.

Team Fluoride 

Instead of telling the public about what honest scientists had actually found, it has steadfastly held to the lies and the cover-up of the dental-industrial-governmental establishment when telling us what to believe. So, we shouldn’t expect the big players of Team Fluoride to admit that they have been in the wrong, and this will even be true regardless of what the verdict the trial judge in the fluoride lawsuit comes up with. If the defendant, the Environmental Protection Agency loses, it likely may very well appeal the verdict, thus allowing the harm to America’s children to continue on for months and maybe years. 
Expert fired; computers destroyed by “accident”? It has never been easy for the scientific truth about fluoride to see the light of day. The great toxicologist Phyllis Mullenix, PhD, seemed destined to turn the tide against the fluoride myths when she found powerful evidence in 1989-1990 that fluoride was toxic to her test animals. 
She had the integrity to publish anyway, despite warnings that she would lose her prestigious job at the Forsyth Dental Institute, if she did so. By 1994, she had been given a termination notice from Forsyth and in the final months of being there before she left, her multi-million high tech computer equipment had been destroyed, harmed by an inexplicable “rain” that had fallen from the ceiling. And the well cared for test animals had mysteriously taken ill and died. She never got another NIH grant or a job anywhere, in any university or research facility. In recalling her treatment by Forsyth and by the NIH research establishment, she described her experience as “Mister Toad’s Wild Ride.”  
Crops and farm animals severely harmed She had come to know first-hand how government and industry bias could trump science of the highest quality. But to her astonishment, it would rise to new heights in 1997, after several reporters contacted her and told her about of the real origins of water fluoridation, going back to the 1940s and the atomic bomb project (“The Manhattan Project”). DuPont’s chemical facility in Deepwater, Delaware, was facing a flurry of lawsuits from farmers who, being near the plant, had crops and farm animals that were severely harmed by toxic fluoride from the chemical plant. The plant was being used to make uranium hexafluoride, needed for Uranium isotope separation for the bomb project. It was Harold Hodge, PhD, the bomb project’s chief fluoride expert, who boldly proposed that the dental establishment should send around a memo to the communities in New Jersey claiming, falsely of course, that a little bit of fluoride in their drinking water would protect children’s teeth from decay. 

Harold Hodge, PhD

America’s biggest scientific fraudster? 

Hodge also brazenly green-washed the image of fluoride for industrial plants that were exposing their workers to unsafe amounts of fluoride. Hodge’s own research found that fluoride was harmful to the dentician of workers – most of them lost all of their teeth! – but Hodge falsified the evidence in a published scientific article that provided for the fluoride cover-up needs of American industry, including the bomb project which employed tens of thousands of workers, many of whom were disabled and many who died. In short, Harold Hodge, who died in 1990, known as America’s leading fluoride expert, was actually America’s biggest scientific fraudster and one who did incalculable harm to America in the sweep of time since then. Most people never learn that there is such a thing as a criminal-scientist. 
CIA and Department of Defense role? 

The revelations about the origins of fluoridation, Harold Hodge, and the bomb project particularly touched Phyllis Mullenix personally when she learned about them in 1997. For, the bizarre twist is that in the final years of Hodge’s life, he worked at Forsyth Dental Institute alongside Phyllis Mullenix as a sort of a fluoride research team helper. In a kindly way, he was always curious about her progress and what she was finding out. What she was finding out in 1989-1990, Harold Hodge had already secretly discovered half a century earlier in the 1940s, reported to all the players in government and the defense department but then lied about in his statements to the media and the public and in his published scientific papers. His role at Forsyth was, in all probability, to be a mole, to report the research findings to the CIA (which he had deep connections with) as well as the DOD and other government contacts. He was likely a spy for those who wanted to know the scientific truth but also to keep a lid on what the public would be allowed to know.

Expert asked not to publish findings 

So, with that, Phyllis more fully understood the depth of the fluoride cover-up. The powers that be wanted to know the truth about fluoride, including its harmful effects on the brain and behavior. But that was to better manage the use of fluoride and its impacts on brains and behavior, not to reverse course on a program that was harming American’s health. When they brazenly asked her not to publish her important results, they expected her to fall in line and keep quiet to protect her career as a scientist. 

Christopher Bryson

The Fluoride Deception 

This story and much more is covered in Christopher Bryson’s book The Fluoride Deception (2004). At 374 pages, and with thousands of scientific references and citations, this is the work of a brave world-class investigative journalist who covered the scientific excellence and bravery of the top scientific researchers of the last century. The book has chapters on Europe’s top fluoride researcher, Kaj Roholm. Back in the 1940s, Roholm was a brilliant and honest Danish researcher who, unlike Harold Hodge, told the truth on his continent publishing a 354-page book on it. But because of Roholm’s integrity, most of mainland Europe learned of the harmful effects of fluoride and never fluoridated its water. 

EPA “experts” ignorant of key research

In the closing hours of the epochal fluoride trial, EPA’s science expert, David Savitz was asked to comment on the work of Phyllis Mullenix and Kaj Roholm. But he claimed he knew nothing of them and had never heard of them. So, the works of Mullenix and Roholm never became part of the record in the fluoride trial because EPA ‘experts’ knew nothing about them.

Conclusion? What most people believe about fluoride is based on questionable science. That is the intended result of decades of media-government and ADA misinformation. That misinformation persists regardless of what Phyllis Mullenix or any other scientist has published. Old cover-ups die hard. There are powerful interests that want to keep them in place. Do not expect to be handed the truth on a silver platter by a governmental agency. If a governmental body imposes a heavy-handed health measure on you, it is good to be skeptical and to push back. 

For more:

Category:

Activism, Dentistry, research

Benefits of Ozone on Mortality in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/benefits-of-ozone-on-mortality-in?

Benefits of Ozone on Mortality in Patients with COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

Small Studies Found Benefit Yet Adjunctive Therapy Not Advanced to Large, Multicenter Trials

Sep 17, 2024

By Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH

I attended an integrative medicine meeting recently and one of the speakers said that ozone was one of the most important tools in his practice. While this is a very broad topic with > 4000 papers listed in the National Library of Medicine with the MESH term “ozone therapy,” Hu et al briefly summarized:

“Ozone is a molecule composed of three oxygen atoms and a component of the atmosphere in nature, which has a strong oxidizing action. Ozone has a high-energy, variable molecular structure under normal temperature and is quickly and spontaneously decomposed into O2 and a single oxygen atom (O). It has strong activity in oxidation and a strong bactericidal effect on bacteria and viruses.10,11  Ozone therapy inactivates bacteria by disrupting their cell envelope through oxidation of phospholipids and lipoproteins, inhibits fungi growth, damages the capsid of viruses, and upsets the reproductive cycle by disrupting the virus-to-cell contact with peroxidation.12  Oxygen-ozone therapy causes an increase in the rate of red blood cell glycolysis, causing the stimulation of 2,3-diphosphoglycerate, which leads to an increase in oxygen released to the tissues.13”

Innovative physicians, from many parts of the world trialed ozone in hospitalized patients some of whom had 4-6 weeks in the hospital with acute COVID-19. Shang et al performed a meta-analysis of very small studies…. (See link for article)

_______________

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36513208/

Benefits of ozone on mortality in patients with COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Wenli Shang1, Yan Wang2, Guizuo Wang1, Dong Han3

Abstract

Background: The Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues, and the death toll continues to surge. Ozone therapy has long been used in the treatment of a variety of infectious diseases, probably through its antioxidant properties and the supply of oxygen to hypoxic tissues. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to determine the efficacy of ozone on mortality in patients with COVID-19.

Methods: A systematic search was made of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, and clinicaltrials.gov, without language restrictions. Prospective controlled trials on treatment of COVID-19 with ozone, compared with placebo or blank, were reviewed. Studies were pooled to risk ratios (RRs) and weighted mean differences (WMDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).

Results: Eight trials (enrolling 371 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Ozone therapy showed significant effects on mortality (RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17-0.85; P = 0.02), length of hospital stay (WMD -1.63 days, 95% CI -3.05 to -0.22 days; P = 0.02), and polymerase chain reaction (PCR) positivity (RR 0.07, 95% CI 0.01-0.34; P = 0.001).

Conclusions: Ozone therapy significantly reduced mortality, PCR positivity, and length of stay in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Ozone therapy should be considered for COVID-19 patients.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33169118/

No abstract available, but go here for the commentary:  https://www.cell.com/the-innovation/fulltext/S2666-6758(20)30063 1returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2666675820300631%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
All patients also were given antiviral agents and three were also treated with steroids.

Category:

research, Treatment, Viruses