Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Caudwell on Son’s Fight With Lyme: ‘Many Times We Thought We’d Lost Him’

https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1597999/phones4u-john-caudwell-lyme-disease

‘Many times we thought we’d lost him’ Phones4u’s John Caudwell on son’s Lyme disease fight

THE BILLIONAIRE founder of Phones4U John Caudwell tried to hold back tears as he opened up about his family’s battle with Lyme disease.
By Luke Whelan

The entrepreneur from Birmingham is estimated to be worth over one and a half billion pounds. Despite the family’s immense wealth, the Caudwells have been just as vulnerable to the tick-borne illness as anybody else. In a recent interview, he said he felt “powerless to help” his son who suffered severely from the condition. Caudwell himself was infected with the disease as well.  (See link for article & video)

_________________

For more:

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Uncategorized

Emerging Tick Borne Diseases in Australia

http://

Emerging Tick Borne Diseases in Australia

Aug. 1, 2022

Dr. Peter Mayne

This recently uploaded video is about a 2011 paper found here:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221768948_Emerging_incidence_of_Lyme_borreliosis_babesiosis_bartonellosis_and_granulocytic_ehrlichiosis_in_Australia

Abstract

Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease (LD), and Babesia, Bartonella, and Ehrlichia species (spp.) are recognized tick-borne pathogens in humans worldwide. Using serology and molecular testing, the incidence of these pathogens was investigated in symptomatic patients from Australia. Sera were analyzed by an immunofluorescent antibody assay (IFA) followed by immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgM Western blot (WB) assays. Both whole blood and sera were analyzed for detection of specific Borrelia spp. DNA using multiplex polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing. Simultaneously, patients were tested for Babesia microti, Babesia duncani, Anaplasma phagocytophilum, Ehrlichia chaffeensis, and Bartonella henselae infection by IgG and IgM IFA serology, PCR, and fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH). Most patients reported symptom onset in Australia without recent overseas travel.
  • 28 of 51 (55%) tested positive for LD
  • Of 41 patients tested for tick-borne coinfections, 13 (32%) were positive for Babesia spp
  • nine (22%) were positive for Bartonella spp
  • Twenty-five patients were tested for Ehrlichia spp. and (16%) were positive for Anaplasma phagocytophilum while none were positive for Ehrlichia chaffeensis.
  • Among the 51 patients tested for LD, 21 (41%) had evidence of more than one tick-borne infection.
  • Positive tests for LD, Babesia duncani, Babesia microti, and Bartonella henselae were demonstrated in an individual who had never left the state of Queensland.
  • Positive testing for these pathogens was found in three others whose movements were restricted to the east coast of Australia.

The study identified a much larger tick-borne disease (TBD) burden within the Australian community than hitherto reported. In particular, the first cases of endemic human Babesia and Bartonella disease in Australia with coexisting Borrelia infection are described, thus defining current hidden and unrecognized components of TBD and demonstrating local acquisition in patients who have never been abroad.

_________________

**Comment**

I repost this because “the powers that be” in Australia continue to downplay and deny that Lyme exists in Australia, despite the plethora of suffering patients and many doctors who state otherwise.  (Remember, there are many, many strains of borrelia or Lyme)

Please see this recent article, “Growing evidence of an emerging tick-borne disease that causes a Lyme-like
illness for many Australia patients,” by  Professor Noel. Campbell

It appears Mayne has also been disciplined for his stance on Lyme, like many other LLMDs.

Mayne states he has absolute proof that Lyme is in Australia as tissue samples at the bite sites that he took from two patients were positive for Lyme from DNA analysis.

Category:

Babesia, Bartonella, Ehrlichiosis, Lyme, research, Uncategorized

Lyme & Pregnancy

https://lymediseaseassociation.org/blogs/lda-guest-blogs/sue-faber-rn-bscn-guest-blog-lyme-pregnancy/

Sue Faber, RN, BScN Guest Blog – Lyme & Pregnancy

SueFaberbyStef&Ethan

Sue Faber is a Registered Nurse (BScN) and Co-founder and President of LymeHope, a not-for-profit organization in Canada.  Sue’s specific area of expertise and research is in the compilation and analysis of the literature that exists on maternal-fetal transmission of Lyme and congenital Lyme borreliosis; amplifying, supporting and powering urgent research initiatives to investigate this alternate mode of transmission with the ultimate goal of opening new doors to ensure that children and families affected are able to access appropriate care, treatment, and support.

In 2018, Sue co-authored a nursing resolution for the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario – based on the needs and voiced concerns of Canadians  with Lyme disease coast to coast.  ‘Patient First Treatment for Ontarians with Lyme Disease’– which was passed at the annual 2018 AGM in Toronto.    Sue was awarded the RNAO HUB Fellowship award in 2019.  Sue is honored to be an advisor to the newly formed advocacy group Mothers Against Lyme and has spoken at various conferences on maternal-fetal transmission of Lyme including ILADS (2019), LymeMIND (2019, 2020), NE Ohio Lyme Symposium,  Lyme WNY Symposium and Target Lyme (Ontario).   Sue is honored to collaborate with colleagues from McMaster Midwifery Research Centre in new ground-breaking research on Lyme and Pregnancy.

Sue is firmly committed to transparent and collaborative partnerships with governments, academia, research institutions, healthcare colleagues, and industry stakeholders, to collectively identify challenges, knowledge gaps, and fresh opportunities, to examine and develop transformative health policy, best practice guidelines, and research priorities, which are anchored in patient voice, values, and priorities.

Lyme and Pregnancy:  A Hopeful and Tangible Path Forward

My History  I’ll never forget the day at the end of January 2017 that I received an official letter from my local public health department.  The letter was in response to my requests for a meeting with senior management, to alert them to positive test results for Lyme disease for both myself and one of my daughters and to discuss my concerns that I may have transmitted this infection to her in-utero.   A year earlier I had tested two-tier positive for a European strain of Lyme in Canada – after years of complex multi-system medical symptoms which were fully investigated by multiple medical specialists, without any definitive answers.   I had no recall of a tick bite or an erythema migrans rash and thus tickborne disease had never been considered as a differential diagnosis by my medical team.  As a trained ER nurse, I knew nothing about Lyme disease.

It was a stroke of luck that my primary doctor decided to test me for Lyme after every other possible diagnosis had been ruled out.  The test was positive. My eventual diagnosis of late-stage disseminated Lyme disease by a Canadian infectious disease physician was initially a relief as I now had a name to my illness and what I thought would be a defined path to recovery and healing.  Little did I know that this diagnosis would be the start of a journey into advocacy – one which I have likened to climbing up a steep mountain – without a map or guide – trusting and hoping that one day, I’d make it to the top.

As a Registered Nurse I am extensively trained in evidence-based practice and problem-based learning which has put me in good stead after receiving my Lyme disease diagnosis. I started delving into the published literature on Lyme disease and soon discovered the multi-system complexities of Lyme disease with some researchers identifying striking similarities to syphilis. [i] [ii]  Soon thereafter, I discovered the first published case report that Lyme disease could be transmitted from a mother to her baby in-utero in a paper titled ‘Maternal-fetal transmission of the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi’.[iii]  My heart started to race, I was nauseated and tears started to fall down my cheeks – could this mean that my precious daughters were also impacted?   Like most other aspects of Lyme, I would soon learn that the issue of maternal-fetal transmission was very controversial.

The onset of my symptoms was gradual and predated all of my pregnancies including one first trimester pregnancy loss.  All my daughters had struggled with varying complex medical issues from birth which included jaundice, severe colic, high fevers, myocarditis, atypical seizures, severe OCD, night terrors, anxiety, joint pain, learning difficulties, abdominal pain, strange rashes, speech delay, severe headaches, frequent pneumonia and double vision.  Each child had different clinical manifestations with one common theme – there were no definitive answers as to why.  Could tickborne infection transmitted in-utero be contributing to their illnesses?

My infectious disease physician who was treating me at the time never mentioned that Lyme could be transmitted in pregnancy. Later after I asked, they acknowledged that yes, there were case reports.  One of my daughters also tested two-tier positive in Canada for a European strain of Lyme disease – except unlike me who had lived in Asia and travelled throughout Europe where European strains of Lyme are predominant, she hadn’t.  We both had positive tests for a European strain of Lyme disease and this was why I had asked for a meeting with my local public health unit.  I was hoping they would be interested in investigating the possibility of maternal-fetal transmission.

Instead, the letter I received back was disheartening and disconcerting.  I was advised that despite having tested positive in Canada, using two-tier criteria, both our cases would not be counted in Canadian surveillance statistics because our symptoms were ‘non-specific’ and we didn’t have a ‘clear onset’ or ‘reliable travel history.’  Furthermore I was informed that they had completed ‘a significant amount of research and no scientific evidence to support congenital Lyme in the scientific literature was found.’

—————————————–

Starting a Non-Profit: LymeHope  By this time, I had read more primary research papers reporting transmission of Lyme from mother to baby in-utero [iv] [v] including a report issued by the World Health Organization[vi] and Health and Welfare Canada[vii] clearly documenting the risk of this alternate mode of transmission and possible adverse pregnancy outcomes.  Shortly thereafter, myself and colleague Jennifer Kravis co-founded the Canadian not-for-profit organization LymeHope.[viii]

In February 2017, we started a ‘Ticking Lyme Bomb’ petition[ix] which now has over 86,600 signatures and over 17,000 personal comments from across Canada.  We also arranged meetings with Federal politicians from all parties, organized a bi-partisan round-table in Ottawa on Lyme disease,[x] testified at a Parliamentary Health Committee hearing[xi] and met with senior executives, scientists and officials from the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada.  We were invited to meet with then Federal Minister of Health[xii] and then leader of the Conservative Party of Canada – each time drawing attention to the many complex, serious issues faced by Lyme sufferers across Canada including the documented risk of maternal-fetal transmission.  Each meeting represented another step ‘up the mountain’ with goals of identifying and initiating meaningful, collaborative solutions including innovative research – anchored in meaningful patient engagement and triaged by patient priorities.

In 2018 I co-authored a resolution on Lyme disease which was passed by the Registered Nurses Association of Ontario (RNAO) membership titled: ‘Patient First Treatment for Ontarians with Lyme Disease.’ [xiii]  This resolution highlights the multi-faceted issues faced by Canadian Lyme sufferers and the RNAO would later feature our resolution in an article[xiv] in their Registered Nurse Journal. I am so grateful for the ongoing support of the RNAO and especially the brilliant leadership of Dr. Doris Grinspun who leads the organization.  I’ll never forget her addressing the RNAO membership at the 2018 Annual General Meeting in Toronto – this was the meeting in which our resolution was later being presented for vote.  She shared in general terms that ‘disruption’  may be necessary when confronting obstacles which stand in the way of Canadians accessing appropriate health care.   As she spoke, tears flowed down my cheeks as I recalled the numerous letters, petition comments, personal testimonies and cries for help from my fellow Canadians – adults[xv] and children[xvi] alike – struggling to access appropriate care[xvii] and treatment for Lyme disease within Canada.[xviii]

I personally didn’t want to be labeled as a ‘disruptor’ but rather a bridge-builder and peace-maker.  I so badly wanted meaningful, sustainable change for Canadians with Lyme disease.  However, I have since learned that ‘disruption’ is sometimes necessary if it leads to re-calibration, innovation and opens new opportunities for critical thinking, trust-building, identifying strategic research initiatives and initiates forward momentum.  Many issues around Lyme disease urgently need re-investigation including adequate testing, treatment and alternate modes of transmission.  New research continues to emerge which challenges the status quo, such as the persistence of the Lyme spirochete despite antibiotic treatment.[xix]  [xx]  This is an issue which advocates, clinicians and scientists have identified for decades and is anchored in findings from hundreds of peer-reviewed papers.[xxi]  What is most important is that new research on Lyme disease must be patient relevant.  In a 2016 CMAJ editorial article by Kristen Patrick[xxii], she states, ‘For patient-relevant research to be meaningful, patient and public engagement in research cannot comprise a token lay person on a research ethics review board.  Patients and their caregivers must be involved in decision-making at all steps in the research process, from design, to choice of primary and secondary outcomes, through dissemination and implementation.’

——————————————

National Media Coverage  In 2019, CTV National News[xxiii] highlighted our advocacy work regarding maternal-fetal transmission of Lyme disease and the importance of initiating new research collaborations on this important, under-studied issue.  This national media coverage also highlighted a systematic review on gestational Lyme[xxiv] which had been authored by scientists from both the Public Health Agency of Canada and CDC.  This review included a meta-analysis which identified a significant difference in the frequency of adverse outcomes between treated and untreated pregnancies affected by Lyme disease.

In 2020, an advocate shared with me a discovery that three Federal Canadian agencies including: Health Canada[xxv], Public Health Agency of Canada[xxvi] and Occupational Health and Safety Canada,[xxvii] had historically acknowledged the risk of adverse outcomes associated with Lyme and pregnancy and/or maternal fetal transmission of Lyme on their respective websites.  In all three cases, over a period of several years, this precautionary guidance was subsequently removed.   For years,  we had been advocating for acknowledgement of these issues which had already been publicly communicated!

——————————————

20 Years of Research Has Not Overturned Published Risks & Adverse Outcomes  As there has been no new research in over 20 years which has negated, questioned or overturned the published findings of earlier investigators, these precautionary statements should be clearly communicated.  This is highlighted by the tenants of the Precautionary Principle and clearly communicated in a Health Canada Framework on Managing Health Risks which states: [xxviii] ‘A key feature of managing health risks is that decisions are often made in the presence of considerable scientific uncertainty. A precautionary approach to decision making emphasizes the need to take timely and appropriately preventative action, even in the absence of a full scientific demonstration of cause and effect.’ Both the public and healthcare practitioners should be made aware of these documented risks of adverse pregnancy outcomes and of in-utero transmission of Lyme itself, even if considered rare.  I have asked Canadian Public Health Agency officials for rationale as to why this guidance was removed and continue to await an evidence-based response.

I trust that the Public Health Agency of Canada and Health Canada will follow the CDC[xxix] and NIH[xxx] in updating their public guidance on Lyme and pregnancy to acknowledge that YES, Lyme can be transmitted in utero.  With this simple, evidence-based acknowledgement as a starting point – new doors WILL open for urgent, multi-disciplinary research to better understand this alternate mode of transmission and open new avenues for families and children impacted to receive the medical care and support they need and deserve.

——————————————

So where do we go from here?  There is action, HOPE and meaningful forward momentum!  In Canada, a brand new research project on Lyme and Pregnancy was initiated in the fall of 2020 by McMaster University Midwifery Research Centre[xxxi] and remains open for participants from the US, Canada and globally, I am thankful to part of this research team.  The Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing (CASN) has just released free, open access, online resources including online learning modules for nurses and other professionals working with clients, communities and populations facing climate-driven infectious diseases.[xxxii]  This innovative resource acknowledges both the risk of maternal-fetal transmission of Lyme disease and potential for adverse pregnancy outcomes and also includes a section titled: ‘Living with Climate-Driven Vector-Borne Disease’ which highlights patient advocacy efforts, patient stories and patient centered resources.[xxxiii]  I am so proud that nurses are listening, engaging and paving an inclusive way forward which respects, empowers and includes patients.

In the US, the Cohen Foundation[xxxiv] continues to lead with generous philanthropy for Lyme disease research, innovation and collaboration.  For the last two years I have been honored to represent LymeHope as a panelist in the  LymeMind Conference[xxxv], speaking directly to the issue of maternal-fetal transmission of Lyme[xxxvi] and alongside other experts, bringing this important, understudied alternate mode of transmission back into the forefront of academia and government.  I recently spoke at a webinar hosted by Project Lyme and Mothers Against Lyme Disease [xxxvii] where I shared an overview of the literature on Lyme and Pregnancy[xxxviii]  and also shared several research recommendations for a path forward.

The recent US HHS announcement of LymeX, in partnership with the Steven and Alexandra Cohen Foundation[xxxix] is an extraordinary step forward in bringing together diverse stakeholders including government, non-profits, academia, advocates, patients and industry to ‘accelerate Lyme innovation.’  A recent Notice of Special Interest by the NIH for improving outcomes for maternal health[xl] included ‘development and validation of diagnostics for gestational Lyme disease, which can adversely impact maternal health and pregnancy outcomes.’  All of these things are indicators of positive forward momentum and provide me with renewed Hope that new science, innovation and collaboration will lead the way and open new doors.

Four years after starting Lyme advocacy I believe that we are collectively reaching a Lyme tipping point and patients and advocates are being respected, welcomed and heard.  I admit, there have been times I have been discouraged, exhausted, frustrated and even wanted to step away from leadership.  I’m so thankful for many who encourage me to keep going.  Advocacy in a field as contentious as Lyme disease can be a lonely, misunderstood place.  Pushing for change can be met with skepticism and silence.   If we continue to take one step and another, anchored in evidence, leaning on scientific inquiry and partnered with respectful dialogue and meaningful collaboration – we will make it up to the top of the mountain.

I really look forward to the view from the top of the mountain and one day reaching the pinnacle and planting a flag which represents the hard work and dedication of advocates, patients, scientists, researchers, not-for-profits, clinicians and government officials – all determined to make a lasting difference on behalf of Lyme sufferers . For all the families impacted by Lyme disease and those concerned that in-utero transmission may be a factor in their child’s illness – don’t give up!  I wish I could give you a big Mama-bear hug – we must keep speaking out and sharing our stories, concerns and ideas for solutions.  Our collective voice is being heard and acknowledged and I truly believe that help is on the way.

Footnotes

[i] Hercogova J, Vanousova D. Syphilis and borreliosis during pregnancy. Dermatol Ther. 2008 May-Jun;21(3):205-9. doi: 10.1111/j.1529-8019.2008.00192.x. PMID: 18564251.

[ii] Miklossy, J. (2008). Biology and Neuropathology of Dementia in Syphilis and Lyme Disease. Handbook of Clinical Neurology, 825–844. doi:10.1016/s0072-9752(07)01272-9

[iii] Schlesinger PA, Duray PH, Burke BA, Steere AC, Stillman MT. Maternal-fetal transmission of the Lyme disease spirochete, Borrelia burgdorferi. Ann Intern Med. 1985 Jul;103(1):67-8. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-103-1-67. PMID: 4003991.

[iv] Weber K, Bratzke HJ, Neubert U, Wilske B, Duray PH. Borrelia burgdorferi in a newborn despite oral penicillin for Lyme borreliosis during pregnancy. Pediatr Infect Dis J. 1988 Apr;7(4):286-9. doi: 10.1097/00006454-198804000-00010. PMID: 3130607.

[v] MacDonald AB. Gestational Lyme borreliosis. Implications for the fetus. Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 1989 Nov;15(4):657-77. PMID: 2685924.

[vi] World Health Organization, Geneva. Weekly Epidemiological Record. No. 39. 26 September 1986. Page 297-304.

[vii] Health and Welfare Canada. Lyme Disease in Canada. Canada Dis Wkly Report, June 4, 1988.

[viii] LymeHope:  https://www.lymehope.ca/

[ix] Ticking Lyme Bomb Petition: https://www.change.org/p/minister-philpott-ticking-lyme-bomb-in-canada-fix-canada-s-lyme-action-plan-now

[x] MP Round Table and MP engagement.  https://www.lymehope.ca/advocacy-updates/update-on-mp-round-table-and-mp-engagement-regarding-lyme-disease-in-canada

[xi] Standing Committee on Health, Tuesday, June 6th, 2017.  Evidence. https://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer/en/42-1/HESA/meeting-59/evidence

[xii] Kingston, Anne.  How the Impatient Patient is Disrupting Medicine.  Macleans Magazine,  Oct, 2017. https://www.macleans.ca/society/health/how-the-new-impatient-patient-is-disrupting-medicine/

[xiii]https://myrnao.ca/sites/default/files/attached_files/Resolution%202018%20Final%20from%20AGM%20with%20amendments%20for%20website.pdf

[xiv]Registered Nurses Association of Ontario. ‘Ticking Lyme Bomb, May/June 2018. https://rnao.ca/sites/rnao-ca/files/RNJ-MayJune2018_ticking_lyme_bomb.pdf

[xv]Patient Testimonies at 2016 Federal Framework on Lyme Disease. https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/lyme-disease/federal-framework-lyme-disease-conference/audio-recordings/public-forum-1.html

[xvi] Stimers, Daniel. Lyme Disease MP Roundtable Address, May 2018.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Td-Vw-V7kGU&feature=youtu.be

[xvii] Gaudet EM, Gould ON, Lloyd V.  Parenting When Children Have Lyme Disease:  Fear, Frustration, Advocacy.  Healthcare 2019, 7(3), 95: https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare7030095

[xviii] Boudreau CR, Lloyd VK, Gould ON. Motivations and Experiences of Canadians Seeking Treatment for Lyme Disease Outside of the Conventional Canadian Health-Care System. J Patient Exp. 2018;5(2):120-126. doi:10.1177/2374373517736385

[xix] Sapi E, Kasliwala RS, Ismail H, Torres JP, Oldakowski M, Markland S, Gaur G, Melillo A, Eisendle K, Liegner KB, Libien J, Goldman JE. The Long-Term Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi Antigens and DNA in the Tissues of a Patient with Lyme Disease. Antibiotics (Basel). 2019 Oct 11;8(4):183. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics8040183. PMID: 31614557; PMCID: PMC6963883.

[xx] https://news.tulane.edu/pr/study-finds-evidence-persistent-lyme-infection-brain-despite-aggressive-antibiotic-therapy; https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fneur.2021.628045/full

[xxi]Peer-Reviewed Evidence of Persistence of Lyme Disease Spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi and Tick-Borne Diseases https://www.ilads.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/CLDList-ILADS.pdf

[xxii] Patrick, K. Realizing the Vision of Patient Relevant Research. CMAJ, Vol 188, Issue 15, Oct 2016. https://www.cmaj.ca/content/188/15/1063.full

[xxiii] CTV National News.  Mothers on a mission to prove Lyme disease can be passed to an unborn child. https://www.ctvnews.ca/health/mothers-on-a-mission-to-prove-lyme-disease-can-be-passed-to-unborn-child-1.4261403

[xxiv] Waddell LA, Greig J, Lindsay LR, Hinckley AF, Ogden NH (2018) A systematic review on the impact of gestational Lyme disease in humans on the fetus and newborn. PLoS ONE 13(11): e0207067. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0207067

[xxv] Health Canada. (October 2006) https://web.archive.org/web/20061018070947/http:/www.hc-sc.gc.ca/iyh-vsv/diseases-maladies/lyme_e.html

[xxvi] Public Health Agency of Canada (March 2009)

https://web.archive.org/web/20090307034620/http:/www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/id-mi/lyme-fs-eng.php

[xxvii]Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety (May 1999)

https://web.archive.org/web/19990508215316/http:/www.ccohs.ca/oshanswers/diseases/lyme.html

[xxviii] Health Canada Decision making framework identifying, assessing and managing health risks, August 1, 2000: https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/reports-publications/health-products-food-branch/health-canada-decision-making-framework-identifying-assessing-managing-health-risks.html#a13

[xxix] CDC. Pregnancy and Lyme Disease: https://www.cdc.gov/lyme/resources/toolkit/factsheets/Pregnancy-and-Lyme-Disease-508.pdf

[xxx] Lyme Disease, the Facts, the Challenge. NIH Publication No. 08-7045.  2008.

https://permanent.fdlp.gov/lps81243/LymeDisease.pdf

[xxxi] McMaster University Midwifery Research Centre.  ‘Health Outcomes of people with Lyme disease during pregnancy.’

English Version:  https://obsgynresearch.mcmaster.ca/surveys/index.php?s=MN9CCXDTW9

French Version: https://obsgynresearch.mcmaster.ca/surveys/?s=KWJT9K9TR9

[xxxii] Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing. Nursing and Climate Driven Vector Borne Disease.  https://vbd.casn.ca/

[xxxiii] Canadian Association of Schools of Nursing. Living with Climate Driven Vector Borne Disease. https://vbd.casn.ca/index.php/resources/living-with-climate-driven-vector-borne-disease/

[xxxiv] Cohen Lyme and Tickborne Disease Initiative:  https://www.steveandalex.org/ticks-suck/

[xxxv] LymeMIND: https://lymemind.org/

[xxxvi] 5th Annual LymeMIND Virtual Conference 2020: Mothers and Children Panel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gevtoKkzS2Y&t=8s

[xxxvii] https://lymediseaseassociation.org/about-lyme/pregnancy-and-lyme/lyme-disease-pregnancy-research-opportunities-webinar/

[xxxviii] https://lymediseaseassociation.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/SueFaber_Maternal-Fetal-Transmission-of-Lyme-Research-Gaps-and-Next-Steps_April-29-2021_Webinar.pdf

[xxxix] LymeX initiative: https://www.hhs.gov/cto/initiatives/innovation-and-partnerships/lyme-innovation/lymex/index.html

[xl] Notice of Special Interest (NOSI): Small Business Initiatives for Innovative Diagnostic Technology for Improving Outcomes for Maternal Health

https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-EB-21-001.html

Category:

Lyme, Pregnancy, research, Uncategorized

Court Rules on Biden Admin’s Social Media Collusion & Ad Business Linked to Death & ‘Greenwashing’, & How the CDC Spreads Disinformation

https://thenewamerican.com/court-rules-biden-administrations-collusion-with-media-be-exposed

Court Rules Biden Administration’s Collusion With Social Media be Exposed

by Bob Adelmann
Court Rules Biden Administration’s Collusion With Social Media be Exposed
12963734/iStock/Getty Images Plus

History is likely to record that the decision by a District Judge in Louisiana on Tuesday — allowing that state, along with the state of Missouri, to expose the bureaucrats imposing censorship through collusion with social media — marks a historic milestone victory for the First Amendment.

The First Amendment declares that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” And yet bureaucrats in the executive branch often act as if the First Amendment doesn’t apply to them and have, over the past months and years, worked diligently to limit, restrict, cancel, and otherwise abrogate those precious freedoms with impunity.

Now, thanks to the ruling by Trump-appointed Judge Terry Doughty of the U.S. District Court of the Western District of Louisiana, Monroe Division, those bureaucrats’ days of hiding their identities from public view are shortly coming to an end.

(See link for article)

__________________

SUMMARY:

  • As the AGs of those two states and their staffs can issue those “interrogatories and document requests,” the folks and platforms behind censoring will be exposed.
  • It all began in May when Missouri’s AG filed suit against Biden, Psaki, Fauci, and other ‘officials’ for allegedly colluding with social media companies to suppress freedom of speech under the guise of fighting ‘misinformation.’
  • Federal ‘officials’ have aggressively threatened to remove legal benefits on social media platforms if they do not censor disfavored speakers and content

____________________

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2022/07/20/advertising-greenwashing

Advertising Business Linked to Deaths and Greenwashing

Analysis by Dr. Joseph Mercola
July 20, 2022

Story at-a-glance

  • Advertising agencies wield great power over public opinion, and prosecutors are increasingly starting to look at PR firms’ roles in cases where corporations are accused of serious malfeasance or fraud
  • Hundreds of climate-related court cases are now looking at the role advertising firms played in greenwashing
  • We’re seeing a similar trend happening in the drug industry, where ad agencies are starting to be held to account for the “legal lies” they spin on behalf of their clients. In February 2021, McKinsey & Company, a management consultancy firm, paid $573 million to settle a case in which they were accused of complicity by giving marketing advice to manufacturers of opiates, which have killed more than half a million people
  • May 6, 2021, Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey sued Publicis Health, accusing the company of “collecting more than $50 million in exchange for marketing schemes to get doctors to prescribe Purdue’s opioids to more patients, in higher doses, for longer periods of time.” Publicis tried to have the case dismissed, but failed
  • Aside from hiring big advertising companies to push their wares, drug companies keep the truth from being known through the use of ‘fact checkers’

Advertising agencies wield great power over public opinion, and prosecutors are increasingly starting to look at PR firms’ role in cases where corporations are accused of serious malfeasance or fraud. For example, CampaignAsia.com recently reported that:1

“Hundreds of new greenwashing-related court cases have increased the pressure on PR and advertising agencies, as prosecutors begin to widen their net in terms of who should bear responsibility for the controversial practice …

Since May 2021, 369 climate-related lawsuits against agencies have been concluded, with 218 of those (58%) ruling against the PR and advertising firms … Over the past five years the number of lawsuits relating to the role of PR and advertising in climate change has doubled. The cases are mainly US-based, but span 39 countries in total.”

Smoke and Mirrors

The data reported by CampaignAsia come from the report,2 “Smoke and Mirrors: The Legal Risks of Fossil Fuel Advertising,” published in May 2022 by a climate-change activist organization called Clean Creatives.

The report names WPP, IPG, Dentsu, Publicis and Omnicom — four holding companies that in turn run dozens of individual PR agencies — as being particularly vulnerable to greenwashing lawsuits, as they all work to improve the public image of fossil fuel clients “while they continue to pollute the earth.”

According to Clean Creatives director Duncan Meisel, PR companies take “significant reputational, business and legal risks when they work with fossil fuel companies to spread climate disinformation,” as their work not only hurts the planet but could also land them in court. Meisel also warns that ad agencies may be duped themselves by clients who withhold damaging information, and that such naiveté could end up being costly.

The ESG Scam

Investing in “green” companies has skyrocketed in recent years, but many of these companies aren’t what they claim to be. According to climate change think tank InfluenceMap, a majority of “green” equity funds fall short.

Of the 723 funds marketed using Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) claims, more than half failed to meet the Paris Accord rules on carbon emissions and clean energy, and “more than 70% of the funds with broader ESG goals are also misaligned with global climate targets,” Time magazine reported.3

InfluenceMap noted that BlackRock Inc. — the world’s largest investment firm, which has vowed to make sustainability a core investment strategy — still invests in fossil fuels. The same goes for other major investment companies.

State Street Corporation, for example, which is the third largest, owns a portion of Marathon Petroleum and Philips 66 which, according to InfluenceMap, are “two of the world’s most egregious fossil fuel lobbying companies preventing policy-based climate action.”4

Similarly, a May 2021 report5 by the Economist concluded some of the largest ESG funds in the world are “stuffed full of polluters and sin stocks.” According to a 2019 report by the Wall Street Journal,6 “Eight of the 10 biggest U.S. sustainable funds are invested in oil-and-gas companies, which are regularly slammed by environmental activists.”

Aside from oil and gas, other top ESG investments include tobacco companies and casino operators,7 neither of which is particularly well-known for high ethical standards. In a March 2021 USA Today op-ed, former chief information officer of sustainable investing for BlackRock, Tariq Fancy, said the quiet part out loud:8

“In truth, sustainable investing boils down to little more than marketing hype, PR spin and disingenuous promises from the investment community.”

McKinsey & Company Fined for Consulting That Led to Deaths

We’re also seeing a similar trend happening in the drug industry, where ad agencies are starting to be held to account for the “legal lies”9 they spin on behalf of their clients.

For example, in February 2021, McKinsey & Company, a management consultancy firm, paid $573 million to settle a case in which they were accused of complicity by giving marketing advice to manufacturers of opiates — including the maker of Oxycontin, Purdue Pharma — which have killed more than half a million people.10 CampaignAsia writes:11

“Lauren Papenhausen, a partner at White & Case, said the McKinsey settlement is ‘particularly noteworthy in that it signals a willingness on the part of the government to pursue not only manufacturers, but also those who provide them professional services.

While one might view the settlement as unique to the particular context of opioids, it raises the question of whether governmental concern over particular marketing strategies is a sign of enforcement efforts to come.’”

A late June 2022 article by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health also highlighted obtained litigation documents12 showing McKinsey’s role in the opioid epidemic:13

“They show how McKinsey advised opioid makers Purdue Pharma, Endo Pharmaceuticals, Johnson & Johnson and Mallinckrodt to help them increase sales, despite the growing public outcry over the opioid epidemic …

Materials include scopes of work, proposals, and invoices; presentations prepared for internal discussion and for clients (including Purdue Pharma and Endo Pharmaceuticals); spreadsheets outlining project staffing; and emails responding to news about increased restrictions on opioids.

The collection also houses letters from regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, in response to new drug applications from opioid manufacturers; preparation materials for regulatory advisory committee meetings; opioid-related transition documents for state and federal agencies; and other internal files.

‘These documents now form a unique and invaluable public resource to help us comprehend the magnitude of harm done to the millions of Americans affected by the opioid crisis,’ said Jeremy Greene, MD, PhD, MA, William H. Welch Professor of Medicine and the History of Medicine in the Johns Hopkins School of Medicine.

‘More generally, they shine a bright light on the murkier intersections of science, industry, and financial interest that continue to characterize the U.S. health care system’ …

‘Researchers can leverage these litigation documents to see patterns of industry behavior that could be regulated to protect public health,’ said Dorie Apollonio, PhD, MPP, a professor of clinical pharmacy in the UCSF School of Pharmacy. ‘This will be critical to identifying reforms that can protect against future epidemics like this.’”

McKinsey Played Both Cop and Robber

We recently discovered that the situation is even more corrupt than previously thought. A U.S. House investigation14,15,16 into McKinsey, based on materials obtained through the discovery process of various lawsuits, also revealed McKinsey was advising the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on the safety of opioids, while at the same time advising drug companies on how to maximize sales.

In one instance, McKinsey wrote scripts for Purdue to use in its meeting with the FDA to discuss the safety of OxyContin in pediatric populations. In another, Jeff Smith, a senior McKinsey consultant, worked on a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS) for OxyContin while simultaneously advising the FDA about the drug’s safety.17

As noted by investigative journalist Paul Thacker,18 “Just think about that for a moment — for years McKinsey played both cop and robber.” As reported by The New York Times, April 13, 2022:19

“Since 2010, at least 22 McKinsey consultants have worked for both Purdue and the FDA, some at the same time, according to the committee’s 53-page report …

The firm provided no evidence to the committee that it had disclosed the potential conflicts of interest as required under federal contracting rules — an ‘apparent violation,’ the report said. McKinsey also allowed employees advising Purdue to help shape materials that were intended for government officials and agencies …

‘Today’s report shows that at the same time the FDA. was relying on McKinsey’s advice to ensure drug safety and protect American lives, the firm was also being paid by the very companies fueling the deadly opioid epidemic to help them avoid tougher regulation of these dangerous drugs,’ Representative Carolyn Maloney, the New York Democrat who chairs the committee, said in a statement …

A bipartisan group of lawmakers last month introduced legislation20 aimed at preventing conflicts of interest in federal contracting, citing McKinsey’s experience with Purdue and the FDA.”

McKinsey Engaged in Direct Sales

Now, we’ve also come to find that McKinsey21 did direct sales for its Big Pharma clients, using in-house sales reps. They actually employed entire sales teams that sold clients’ drugs directly to doctors. This revelation came out of the repository22 of opioid litigation documents set up by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. Emails23 show Publicis offers a similar service where Publicis sales staff sell clients’ products to pharmacies. As reported by The New York Times:24

“The Times found that the firm played a far deeper and broader role in advising clients involved in the opioid crisis than was publicly disclosed … While the firm held remarkable sway at Purdue, it also advised the largest manufacturer of generic opioids, Mallinckrodt. It worked with Endo on marketing Opana and helped it grow into a leading generics manufacturer.

It advised Johnson & Johnson, whose subsidiary Tasmanian Alkaloids was the largest supplier of the raw materials extracted from poppies used to make many top-selling opioids. Then, as the full brunt of the epidemic became apparent, it counseled government agencies on how to address the fallout …

Drawing on reams of data and proprietary tools, McKinsey vetted deals and advised on corporate strategy. It developed tactics for dealing with regulators and helped secure approval for new products.

The firm helped clients adopt more aggressive sales strategies, which, on at least two occasions, led companies to shift resources to more potent products.

It profiled and targeted physicians, in some instances trying to influence prescribing habits in ways that federal officials later warned heightened the risk of overdose. And when opioid prescriptions began to decrease during a government crackdown, the records show, McKinsey devised new approaches to drive sales.”

Publicis to Face Charges Over Role in Opioid Crisis

Another advertising company that is in hot water over its role in the opioid crisis is Publicis Health, which crafted many of Purdue’s Oxycontin marketing materials.

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey sued Publicis Health May 6, 2021, accusing the company of “collecting more than $50 million in exchange for marketing schemes to get doctors to prescribe Purdue’s opioids to more patients, in higher doses, for longer periods of time.”25 Publicis tried to have the case dismissed, but failed.26

The Truth About Fact Checkers

Aside from hiring big advertising companies to push their dangerous wares, how else are drug companies keeping the truth from coming out? Enter fact checkers. Over the past two years, it’s become quite clear that so-called “fact checkers” are anything but. While they claim to combat misinformation, they’re the ones spreading most of it, and they do it on behalf of the drug industry and the advertising companies that run cover for them.

There are countless examples of conflicts of interest running amuck in fact checking organizations. To list just a few examples:

• Publicis funded the creation of and is partnered with NewsGuard,27 an online “credibility rater”28 to “provide its clients with more responsible, trustworthy advertising platforms.” It’s not far-fetched to assume Publicis might influence NewsGuard’s ratings of drug industry competitors, such as alternative health sites.

NewsGuard’s health-related service, HealthGuard, is also partnered with the Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH) — a dark money-funded progressive cancel-culture leader29 with extensive ties to government and global think tanks that has labeled people questioning the COVID-19 injection as “threats to national security.”

• As a Google partner,30,31 Publicis also has the ability to bury undesirable views that might hurt its clientele.

• Pfizer (a Publicis client32) also funds Facebook’s fact checking operation,33 which is why you can’t say anything negative about the COVID jabs on Facebook.

• Pfizer also has significant conflicts of interest with Reuters, which has joined in the fact checking enterprise.34 Reuters chairman (and former CEO) James Smith is both a top investor and board member of Pfizer,35 raising suspicions he might have a vested interest in keeping Pfizer’s media record clear of incriminating details.

• Another fact checking organization called FactCheck.org is funded, in part, by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, which holds nearly $2 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock. What’s more, its CEO, Richard Besser, is a former (2009) director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which appears to view the protecting of Big Pharma interests as a full-time job.

The Ultimate Goal of This Network

This network of players is also intricately tied to the World Economic Forum (WEF), which is using pandemic fears to usher the world into a “Great Reset.” Publicis is a WEF partner,36 as is Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, Google, BlackRock, State Street and a slew of other investment firms — and oil companies.37

Many fact checking organizations belong to the International Fact-Checking Network,38 which is financed by George Soros (through his Open Society Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy), Google and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation39 — all of whom are part of the WEF’s technocratic cabal that is pushing for a Great Reset.

This sort of brings us back to where we started, with the greenwashing of polluters. The entire “green” agenda serves that larger “Reset” goal, and the fact that we’re now seeing so much greenwashing going on in the “green” investment sphere is just more proof that the whole thing is a scam. The claim that we must quit using fossil fuels and “go green” to save the planet is a ruse to get people to accept a radically lowered quality of life and greater restrictions on freedom.

Big Pharma fits into this larger scheme because the WEF needs a justification for the introduction of biomonitoring and biosecurity in the form of a digital vaccine passport. The COVID pandemic was a manufactured crisis that “necessitated” global vaccination, and a way to confirm vaccination.

Vaccination tracking was the chosen foundation for what will become a much larger and more invasive monitor and control system involving your finances as well. With vaccine passports being largely rejected, plan B is to introduce digital identity, which is more or less the same thing, just more complete from the start.

So, the reason these players — from fund managers to PR companies, drug companies, legacy media, social media platforms, search engines and fact checking organizations — are all protecting each other is because they’re all cogs in the same machine. They work together to achieve an ultimate goal, which is to put the world population under a system of global technocratic control.

________________

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-morbidity-mortality-weekly-report-covid-disinformation/

How CDC Blatantly Uses Weekly Reports to Spread COVID Disinformation: Three Examples

The authors of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report are afforded the luxury of broadcasting their findings to massive audiences through media outlets that don’t hold them accountable for even gross lapses in scientific rigor.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) — the primary U.S. health protection agency — publicly pledges, among other things, to “base all public health decisions on the highest quality scientific data that is derived openly and objectively.”

The CDC’s “primary vehicle for scientific publication of timely, reliable, authoritative, accurate, objective, and useful public health information and recommendations,” according to the agency, is its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR).

The CDC states that the MMWR readership consists predominantly of physicians, nurses, public health practitioners, epidemiologists and other scientists, researchers, educators and laboratorians.

However, these weekly reports also serve as the means by which the agency disseminates its scientific findings to a much wider readership through media outlets that inform hundreds of millions of people.

(See link for article)

_________________

SUMMARY:

  • MMWR is not peer-reviewed & often misrepresents or omits important facts
  • The CDC uses weak or flawed data to make public health decisions. Three examples:
    • March 5, 2021, MMWR:  “Mask mandates were associated with statistically significant decreases in county-level daily COVID-19 case and death growth rates within 20 days of implementation.”
      • But the authors’ own data and calculations show the drop in DGR may have had nothing to do with mask mandates at all.  How amazing! Masks seem to work several weeks before people are forced to wear them! The CDC arbitrarily chose to limit its analysis to 100 days after mandates were instituted & has a lengthy history of using arbitrary cut offs.  Yet the media continually reported on the flawed mask study & more than 100 media outlets cited the CDC study within 24 hours of its release — but not one questioned the authors’ analysis. 
      • Three days after the flawed mask study, CDC’s Walensky stated that “fully vaccinated people can congregate indoors with other fully vaccinated people without wearing face coverings or practicing physical distancing.” 
    • Jan. 7 MMWR, “CDC recommends COVID-19 vaccination for women who are pregnant, recently pregnant (including those who are lactating), who are trying to become pregnant now, or who might become pregnant in the future to reduce the risk for severe COVID-19–associated outcomes.”
      • The CDC relied on comparing two poorly matched groups of mothers that set up the unvaxxed group to be at higher risk:
        • 50% of the unvaxxed had inadequate prenatal care than the “vaxxed”
        • Obesity was overrepresented in the unvaxxed group than the “vaxxed”
        • 3 times more African American women were in the unvaxxed group (CDC admits these mothers may have as much as a 50% greater risk for preterm birth compared to white mothers)
        • 25% of the unvaxxed group had a greater incidence of COVID infection
        • Scarcity of “vaxxed” moms ‘vaccinated’ in the 1st trimester where the risk of defects and miscarriages is greatest.
      • This flawed study showed that COVID shots aren’t just safe, they actually lower the risk of preterm birth and low birth size.  Mainstream media jumped right on this flawed study.
    • April 19 MMWR, CDC authors compared the risk of hospitalization of 5- to 11-year-old children from COVID-19 during three different time periods: pre-Delta, Delta and Omicron.  Statements are made in the text of the paper that are true but also irrelevant or misleading. Instead of using total number of hospitalizations, they again arbitrarily choose a brief period of each wave which suggest Omicron is more dangerous than Delta which is blatantly false. They use the same strategy in March, and Dr. Nass dissects it here.
      • CDC authors don’t mention the absolute risk of the intervention, but only the relative benefit of the experimental vaccine as well as the fact roughly 10,000 children had to be fully vaccinated to prevent a single hospitalization.
      • The CDC also misleads by stating 87% of hospitalized children were unvaxxed at a time when 70% or more hadn’t been inoculated during the time frame. Media outlets fell all over themselves in announcing this flawed study, and on this page, there are dozens of articles citing the misleading MMWR.
        • The data from the MMWR has bee updated and now show that more than 113,000 children in that age group must receive both doses to prevent a single hospitalization per month.
        • The CDC states: “Increasing COVID-19 vaccination coverage among children aged 5–11 years, particularly among racial and ethnic minority groups disproportionately affected by COVID-19, can prevent COVID-19–associated hospitalization and severe outcomes,” but their own data show this is false. The authors later correct themselves in the body of the report: “There were no significant differences for severe outcomes by vaccination status,” yet which statement do you think the media outlets chose to publish?

If the MMWR series is “the voice of CDC,” mainstream media serves as its mouthpiece.

By working together, the CDC authors are afforded the luxury of broadcasting their findings to massive audiences through media outlets that will not — and in many cases cannot — hold them accountable for even gross lapses in scientific rigor.

In Conclusion:
  • There wasn’t a “statistically significant decrease in COVID-19 case counts associated with mask mandates.”
  • There wasn’t enough data to recommend the COVID-19 vaccine for mothers who recently became pregnant.
  • The data did not demonstrate that the COVID-19 vaccine can prevent severe outcomes in children ages 5 to 11.
But, the band plays on and on and on.

Conflicts of interest:

Misinformation:

Censorship:

Category:

Activism, Uncategorized

Upcoming July 12 AONM Webinar: Potential Connection Between Lyme and Breast Cancer

https://aonm.org/upcoming_events/

AONM Webinar with Dr. Eva Sapi

TITLE:  Potential Connection of Borrelia Infection and Breast Cancer

DATE:  12TH JULY 2022

TIME: 19:00 BST (British Summer Time)

20:00 CEST (Central European Summer Time), 14:00 EDT (Eastern Daylight Time USA)

DESCRIPTION:

Borrelia burgdorferi, the causative agent of Lyme disease, is known to be able to disseminate and colonise various organs and tissues of its hosts, which is very crucial for its pathogenicity and survival.

Recent studies have shown the presence of Borrelial DNA in various kinds of breast cancer tissues with poor prognosis which raises the question about whether B. burgdorferi could play a role in tumour development.

In this webinar, recent research data will be discussed on the potential role of B. burgdorferi in breast cancer.

Please join us at 7.00pm (UK) on Tuesday 12th JULY. The webinar is free of charge. There will also be ample time for questions. We look forward to seeing you there!

The webinar will be live, and a recording will be available shortly after broadcast.

Please Register Here: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_Q-sHmlu0QK6LsFx024wQNw

AONM Webinar with Dr. Armin Schwarzbach

TITLE:  The Growing Evidence Between Infections and Cancer 

DATE:  28 July 2022 

TIME:  19:00 BST (British Summer Time)

20:00 CEST (Central European Summer Time)

14:00 EDT (Eastern Daylight Time USA)

DESCRIPTION:

There is significant research to suggest that infections contribute to the forming of, or even cause Cancers. In this fascinating Webinar Dr. Schwarzbach will present evidence that will substantiate this claim. The potential behind such findings are huge for patients worldwide regarding not only unrealised and future therapeutic interventions, but also the prevention of Cancers.

Please join us at 7.00pm (UK) on Tuesday 12th JULY. The webinar is free of charge. There will also be ample time for questions. We look forward to seeing you there!

The webinar will be live, and a recording will be available shortly after broadcast.

Please Register Here: https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_d-WiN6srSsOOPJZlHa32AA

For more:

Category:

Activism, Lyme, Uncategorized