It simply doesn’t matter that those who are ill with Lyme/MSIDS suffer with ongoing symptoms, the system tells them they are either imagining it or making it all up. The parallel universe is ruled by ‘consensus‘ based medicine where a group decides what is true or not true and then teaches doctors their decision, demands complete obedience, which omits case studies, global research, and anything that defies the consensus narrative. Then insurance companies smugly hide behind these edicts given from above so patients are forced to pay out of pocket for any true help they receive.
Further, ‘the powers that be’ are actually behind the manipulation of these pathogens in a lab to make them stronger and more infectious. No wonder they don’t want to come clean. They have a lot to answer for. Remember the Tuskagee experiment? Author Dr. Colin Ross obtained FOIA documents for this unethical government experimentation and noted that:
“The Tuskeegee Syphilis Study was eventually shut down in 1972 because of the efforts of an investigative journalist. There is no evidence to suggest that the government or the medical profession had any intention of closing the study as of 1972.”
In the video, Dr. Wodarg (pulmonologist and epidemiologist) speaks about how a false COVID ‘pandemic’ has been used for control. But COVID wasn’t his first rodeo. In the past he declared H1N1 a “false pandemic” and “one of the greatest medicine scandals of the century.” (Forbes, February 10, 2010). He is a modern day hero in my book.
Over the past few months, the phrase digital health ecosystem has crept into press releases, conference keynotes and policy documents. We are told that this new structure will make check-ups quicker, treatment cheaper and diagnostics sharper. Yet most people still wonder: What exactly is the digital health ecosystem, and why does every tech giant and government department seem to be racing to build it?
This article unpacks the concept, traces its technological building blocks and highlights the opportunities and threats hidden beneath the glossy marketing language.
Watch the presentation here:
Why new data centers are appearing everywhere
Drive through almost any U.S. state and you will notice enormous, window-less warehouses springing up like mushrooms. These facilities are not retail hubs or logistics depots—they are data centers.
Inside, thousands of servers will store and process electronic medical files, insurance records, tax information and, increasingly, the live sensor data produced by wearable gadgets. Without this storage backbone the digital health ecosystem could not exist; vast computational power is the “prerequisite,” as one IEEE paper argues, for Healthcare 4.0 to function.
A vast grab for personal data
Early in 2025, a high-profile Silicon Valley partnership DOGE obtained access to 19 sensitive U.S. Health and Human Services databases. The cache included electronic health records, IRS files, Social Security numbers, addresses and bank details—an unprecedented consolidation of personal information.
Why does this matter to the emerging digital health ecosystem? Because predictive medicine, AI-driven drug discovery and remote patient management all feed on comprehensive, real-time data. The richer the dataset, the more marketable (and profitable) the algorithms built on top of it.
The political push for wearables
Robert F. Kennedy, in his role as Secretary of Health and Human Services, openly stated that he wants “a wearable on every American within four years.” His position is echoed by similar pledges in Europe and Asia.
Wearables—smart watches, rings, patches and even earpieces—act as the edge devices of the digital health ecosystem. They harvest heart rate, temperature, blood-oxygen, movement and sleep metrics, forwarding them through body-area and personal-area networks to those sprawling data centers.
Operation Stargate and the AI pharmaceutical dream
Long before most people heard the term “generative AI,” government-funded programs such as Operation Stargate allocated more than $500 billion to AI-specific data centers. Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison boasted that the new architecture could design an mRNA vaccine “in 48 hours.”
These milestones reveal the deeper aim of the digital health ecosystem: a real-time feedback loop in which sensors feed data to the cloud, AI models simulate outcomes on “digital twins,” and automated factories print customized therapeutics on demand.
What the IEEE paper really says about Healthcare 4.0
If this article doesn’t scare the bejeebers out of you, you are asleep at the wheel.
Please read entire article in top link to educate yourself.
In short, if you believe Lyme/MSIDS is tightly controlled now, just wait for a digital health ecosystem. It will be impossible to get treatment anywhere as everything will be tyrannically monitored and controlled. The AMA and other sold out ‘professional’ organizations are already following ‘consensus’ based medicine – where decisions are made by consensus, rather than from reality, truth, or real science. Similar to how it has controlled COVID(banning effective treatments, bullying people into an experimental, never used before mRNA gene therapy, and persecuting doctors trying to save lives), it will be nearly impossible to even find an independent doctor willing to think for himself/herself.
A person in the comment section from the article stated something worth repeating here:
What stands out here is the reminder that these systems are not limited to the US, they form part of a much wider global agenda that is steadily being implemented across different countries.
This website has posted many articles on the unelected global elites and their evil plans:
BREAKING — Landmark Report Finds Vaccination Is the Dominant Risk Factor for Autism Spectrum Disorder
McCullough Foundation’s authoritative analysis of more than 300 studies provides the most comprehensive synthesis to date on the possible causes of autism.
For decades, scientists have debated what drives the relentless rise in autism. Some have claimed it’s due to “increased screening” while others declare it’s anything but vaccines. Thousands of studies have explored genetic, environmental, and perinatal factors—but very few have ever examined vaccine and non-vaccine determinants together within a unified analytical framework.
Now, the landmark McCullough Foundation Report titled, Determinants of Autism Spectrum Disorder, provides the most comprehensive synthesis on the possible causes of autism to-date. Thanks to the tireless work of Nicolas Hulscher, MPH, John S. Leake, MA, Simon Troupe, MPH, Claire Rogers, MSPAS, PA-C, Kirstin Cosgrove, BM, CCRA, M. Nathaniel Mead, MSc, PhD, Bre Craven, PA-C, Mila Radetich, Andrew Wakefield, MBBS, and Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH — and support from the Bia-Echo Foundation — this historic effort was made possible.
Our report represents a major breakthrough through the iron grip of censorship imposed by the Bio-Pharmaceutical Complex on the issue of vaccination and autism. It also marks Dr. Andrew Wakefield’s first major return to the scientific literature in years—after enduring years of irrational attacks from the vaccine cartel.
By systematically integrating more than 300 studies across epidemiologic, clinical, mechanistic, and molecular domains, our team delivers the most extensive mapping yet of autism’s multifactorial origins and opens a new line of inquiry into how environmental and iatrogenic exposures intersect with genetic susceptibility.
By evaluating all known risk factors side by side, this analysis uniquely clarifies the relative contribution of vaccination compared to genetic and environmental domains. No prior review has attempted this integrative scope without excluding positive vaccine-association studies or unvaccinated controls—an essential step in determining whether vaccines truly play a role in autism risk, and if so, how significant that role is within the broader causal landscape.
Here’s what we found as described in the Abstract:
Introduction: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is now estimated to affectmore than 1 in 31 children in the United States, with prevalence rising sharply over the past two decades and posing an increasing burden to families and public health systems. Most of the literature on ASD characterizes it as a complex neurodevelopmental condition shaped by multiple determinants, including genetic liability, immune dysregulation, perinatal stressors, and environmental toxicants. Since 1996, the possible role of childhood vaccination has also been discussed and debated. This review synthesizes the full range of evidence to clarify both vaccine-related and non-vaccine contributors to ASD risk.
Methods: We comprehensively examined epidemiologic, clinical, and mechanistic studies evaluating potential ASD risk factors, assessing outcomes, exposure quantification, strength and independence of associations, temporal relationships, internal and external validity, overall cohesiveness, and biological plausibility.
Results: We found potential determinants of new onset ASD before the age of 9 years old to include: older parents (>35 years mother, >40 years father), premature delivery before 37 weeks of gestation, common genetic variants, siblings with autism, maternal immune activation, in utero drug exposure, environmental toxicants, gut-brain axis alterations and combination routine childhood vaccination. These diverse genetic, environmental, and iatrogenic factors appear to intersect through shared pathways of immune dysregulation, mitochondrial dysfunction, and neuroinflammation, culminating in neurodevelopmental injury and regression in susceptible children. Of 136 studies examining childhood vaccines or their excipients, 29 found neutral risks or no association, while 107 inferred a possible link between immunization or vaccine components and ASD or other neurodevelopmental disorders (NDDs), based on findings spanning epidemiologic, clinical, mechanistic, neuropathologic, and case-report evidence of developmental regression. 12 studies comparing routinely immunized versus completely unvaccinated children or young adults consistently demonstrated superior overall health outcomes among the unvaccinated, including significantly lower risks of chronic medical problems and neuropsychiatric disorders such as ASD. The neutral association papers were undermined by absence of a genuinely unvaccinated control group—with partial or unverified immunization even among those classified as unvaccinated—alongside registry misclassification, ecological confounding, and averaged estimates that obscure effects within vulnerable subgroups. Only a few case–control studies verified vaccination through medical records or parent-held cards, and none performed independent clinical assessments of the children for ASD. In contrast, the positive association studies found both population signals (ecologic, cohort, case–control, dose–response, and temporal clustering) and mechanistic findings converging on biologic plausibility: antigen, preservative, and adjuvant (ethyl mercury and aluminum) induced mitochondrial and neuroimmune dysfunction, central nervous system injury, and resultant incipient phenotypic expression of ASD. Clustered vaccine dosing and earlier timing of exposure during critical neurodevelopmental windows appeared to increase the risk of ASD. These findings parallel strong, consistent increases in cumulative vaccine exposure during early childhood and the reported prevalence of autism across successive birth cohorts. To date, no study has evaluated the safety of the entire cumulative pediatric vaccine schedule for neurodevelopmental outcomes through age 9 or 18 years. Nearly all existing research has focused on a narrow subset of individual vaccines or components—primarily MMR, thimerosal-containing, or aluminum-adjuvanted products—meaning that only a small fraction of total childhood vaccine exposure has ever been assessed for associations with ASD or other NDDs.
Conclusion: The totality of evidence supports a multifactorial model of ASD in which genetic predisposition, neuroimmune biology, environmental toxicants, perinatal stressors, and iatrogenic exposures converge to produce the phenotype of a post-encephalitic state. Combination and early-timed routine childhood vaccination constitutes the most significant modifiable risk factor for ASD, supported by convergent mechanistic, clinical, and epidemiologic findings, and characterized by intensified use, the clustering of multiple doses during critical neurodevelopmental windows, and the lack of research on the cumulative safety of the full pediatric schedule. As ASD prevalence continues to rise at an unprecedented pace, clarifying the risks associated with cumulative vaccine dosing and timing remains an urgent public health priority.
Medscape Now! Interprofessional Care of Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome
Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH, United States
Oct 25, 2025
What was deceitfully established here in the US has been propagated worldwide as signatures for this petition are coming in from 21 countries!
Let’s put our numbers to work. Consider writing an email to Adrian Duncan of Medscape/WebMD referencing this Update and demand a retraction of this deplorable and misleading CME directed to the medical community.
Medscape Now! Interprofessional Care of Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome
Adrian Duncan, Group Vice President
Global Head of Education & Medical Affairs
aduncan@webmd.net
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “aduncan@webmd.net” <aduncan@webmd.net>
Cc: “cme@medscape.net” <cme@medscape.net>, “caitlin@medlitera.com” <caitlin@medlitera.com>, “naseem@medlitera.com” <naseem@medlitera.com>, “michelle@medlitera.com” <michelle@medlitera.com>
Date: 10/24/2025 12:42 PM EDT
Subject: Medscape Now! Understanding the Latest Evidence and Best Practices for Interprofessional Care of Post-Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome
“To date, our understanding of the pathophysiology of Lyme IACI remains limited,[4] with little to no evidence supporting chronic Borrelia infection as the underlying cause.”
Adrian Duncan, Group Vice President
Global Head of Education & Medical Affairs
Dear Mr. Duncan,
In reference to the Medscape article written by Naseem Bazargan, I asked Google’s Gemini AI the following questions:
The latest Medscape CME education claiming to be developed with AI assistance, appears to have omitted the following references:
2018 Middelveen study; “Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease” identifying twelve patients who were culture positive after antibiotic treatment. Some of these patients had taken as many as eleven different types of antibiotics. Also missing is the NIH funded Embers studies of persistent Bb infection in monkeys and mice. And the Sapi study: “The Long-Term Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi Antigens and DNA in the Tissues of a Patient with Lyme Disease” Here is the positive culture report from the CDC at Fort Collins Colorado and the chronic Lyme autopsy results from the patient in the Sapi study: Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The destructive nature of Borrelia is evident in the patient’s liver (nutmeg liver), kidneys, heart, lungs and brain. The patient died after the insurer refused additional IV antibiotic therapy.
In fact, there appears to be 700 references identifying persistent infection.
Question: So, is AI participating in the collusion to suppress evidence of antibiotic resistance or chronic Lyme disease? And what about the other 700 references identifying persistent infection?
Mr. Duncan… I will spare you the lengthy discourse and get right to the point.
Questions to AI:
1. Does a chronic relapsing seronegative disease fit the vaccine model?
AI Response:
A chronic, relapsing, seronegative disease does not fit the traditional vaccine model, which is primarily designed to prevent initial infections. The characteristics you describe present significant scientific and commercial challenges for vaccine developers.
2. Since you agreed that a chronic, relapsing, seronegative disease does not fit the traditional vaccine model this in and of itself would be the motivation to conceal any and all evidence of persistent infection wouldn’t you agree? This so-called debate is not a debate at all and deserves a criminal investigation. Who would be a suitable candidate to approach for a legal case?
AI Response: Allegations of medical fraud are typically handled as civil matters, but they can become criminal if there is evidence of gross negligence, recklessness, or intent to deceive, especially for financial gain.
Mr. Duncan,
Thirty-four years ago Dr. Allen Steere identified chronic Lyme disease which should have set off a red flag prompting an immediate search for better antimicrobials but then did a 180° as he became principal investigator (PI) of the Phase 3 clinical trial for the first Lyme disease vaccine. So all the eggs were put into the vaccine basket while a campaign was orchestrated to discredit the sick and disabled patient population along with the courageous clinicians attempting to help these patients. Apparently, a chronic relapsing seronegative disease did not fit the business model of patent royalties, vaccine development and pharmaceutical profits. This set the stage for long-term treatment denial and unimaginable pain and suffering around the world. It has been ongoing for over three decades now and the latest CME from Medscape is propagating this travesty.
Lyme disease has been grossly mishandled by our public health officials for the sake of a vaccine.A false public health narrative was enforced and any clinician who did not follow that narrative risked losing their license to practice medicine as seen in the documentary: Under our Skin. (please watch the 5min trailer)
I want to make this crystal clear; suppressing evidence of antibiotic resistance is not collaboration, it is collusion. Will you turn a blind eye to the facts/evidence I have presented?
Effects of 2-year cocoa extract supplementation on inflammaging biomarkers in older US adults: findings from the COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study randomised clinical trial
To examine the long-term effect of cocoa flavanols on inflammaging biomarkers in the COcoa Supplement and Multivitamin Outcomes Study (COSMOS).
Methods
COSMOS is a large, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2 × 2 factorial trial testing the effects of a cocoa extract supplement (containing 500 mg cocoa flavanols/day, including 80 mg (−)-epicatechin) among women aged ≥65 years and men aged ≥60 years. This ancillary study measured five widely used serum inflammaging biomarkers, including three pro-inflammatory markers (high-sensitivity C-reactive protein [hsCRP], interleukin-6, tumour necrosis factor-α), one anti-inflammatory cytokine (interleukin-10) and one pleotropic cytokine (interferon-γ [IFN-γ]) in a random sample of 598 participants with biospecimens collected at baseline, Year 1, and Year 2.
Results
The mean age was 70.0 ± 5.6 years, and 49.8% were female. Cocoa extract supplementation significantly decreased hsCRP levels compared with placebo, with a between-group difference in yearly percentage change relative to baseline levels of −8.4% (95% CI, −14.1% to −2.3%; nominal P = .008; Holm-adjusted P value = .039). Moreover, cocoa extract increased IFN-γ with a 6.8% (95% CI, 1.5% to 12.2%, nominal P = .011; Holm-adjusted P value = .043) difference in yearly percentage change versus placebo. The effects of cocoa extract on other inflammatory markers were not significant (all adjusted P values >.05).
Conclusion
Cocoa extract supplementation significantly decreased hsCRP, supporting a role in modulating the chronic inflammaging process as a potential mechanism underlying its cardio-protective effects, including a 27% reduction in cardiovascular disease death in the COSMOS trial. The biological effect of increased IFN-γ by cocoa extract warrants further exploration.
Key Quotes:
Taking cocoa extract supplementation lowered C-reactive protein, a key marker of body-wide inflammation, by 70 percent after two years.
While the placebo group’s CRP levels rose by about 5 percent per year, the cocoa group’s dipped by about 3 percent—a change that wasn’t significant on its own. However, when the two groups were compared across two years, cocoa significantly prevented the usual age-related inflammaging, keeping inflammation steady. These results came from a standardized 500 milligram cocoa flavanol supplement (including 80 milligrams epicatechin).
Evidently CRP rises about 5% annually with age.
Cocoa is high in flavanols which counter inflammation and boost nitric oxide production which relaxes blood vessels, lowers oxidative stress, and helps reduce inflammation in vessel walls. A review of dark chocolate shows that effects are strongest with higher doses exceeding 450mg per day. Authors state the darker the better and to aim for 70% cocoa or higher and to be careful not to overdo chocolate in food as it is calorie dense. All it takes is a square or two…..not the whole bar!
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2018/03/02/dmso-msm-for-lyme-msids/The many benefits of MSM – including reduction of allergy symptoms: *Reduces cytokines & inflammation (in vitro studies show MSM reduces IL-6 (a marker implicated in chronic inflammation as well as suppressing NO and prostanoids) *antioxidant *free radical scavenger *kills gastrointestinal, liver, and colon cancer cells *restored normal cellular metabolism in mouse breast cancer and melanoma cells *helps wounds heal *increases blood flow *reduces muscle spasms *antiparasitic properties (especially for giardia) *normalizes the immune system *cholinesterase inhibitor *alleviates allergy symptoms *increases energy *improves condition of hair, nails, and skin