Gold Standard COVID Science in Practice: An Interdisciplinary Symposium

July 28, 2021

Gold Standard Covid Science in Practice

An Interdisciplinary Symposium

calling for immediate intervention

Presented by Doctors for Covid Ethics

Hosted by UK Column
July 29th and 30th

17.00pm – 22.00pm BST
23 Speakers over Two Days

Day 1

Session I: The False Pandemic

Session II: The Going Direct Reset
Tips From a Personal Trainer

Day 2

Session III: First Do No Harm

Session IV: The Hour of Justice

Closing Panel Session

Including

Prof. Sucharit Bhakdi MD

Dr. Reiner Fuellmich

Dr. Michael Yeadon

Professor Martin Haditsch

Catherine Austin Fitts

Dr. Thomas Binder

Associate Professor Michael Palmer

Professor Dennis Rancourt

Program Day 1

Thursday, 29 July

Session I with Prof. Martin Haditsch: The False Pandemic

17:00

Greetings and introduction

Opening Statement by Sucharit Bhakdi

17:10

“The SARS-CoV-2 Genome The evidence of its artificial origin”                 

Opening Plenary by Michael Palmer

17.30

The Laboratory Pandemic

With Ulrike Kämmerer

17.50

The False Pandemic

With Denis Rancourt

18.10

Planned Lockdown

A dialogue with Stefan Homburg and Sucharit Bhakdi

18.30

The Power of Masks

Conversation with Josef Thoma, Harald Walach and Martin Haditsch

18.50

“The Powerless Doctors”

Debate with Sam White, Thomas Binder, Charles Hoffe and Martin Haditsch

19.20

Panel Discussion

With all Session I participants lead by Martin Haditsch

Session II with Catherine Austin Fitts: The Going Direct Reset

19.50

The Going Direct Reset: The Pandemic is a Monetary Event

With John Titus

20.10

UK Central Bankers & the Economic Drivers

Discussion with Richard Werner, Catherine Austin Fitts and Taylor Hudak

20.30

How to Decentralize Control

Discussion with Richard Werner, Mark Skidmore, Patrick Wood and Catherine Austin Fitts

21.00

Panel Discussion

With all session II participants lead by Taylor Hudak

21.45

First Day Wrap Up and the program for the 2nd day

With Catherine Austin Fitts, Michael Palmer, Taylor Hudak

Program Day 2

Friday July 30

Session III with Michael Palmer: First Do No Harm

17.00

The Propaganda Matrix

The complicit role of the media

With Taylor Hudak, Patrick Henningsen, Michael Meyen and Catherine Austin Fitts

17.30

Vaccines: Emergency Authorization Abused                    

With Mike Yeadon

17.50

Pharmacokinetics and toxicity of mRNA vaccines                 

With Michael Palmer and Sucharit Bhakdi

18.10

The End of the Narrative                 

With Sucharit Bhakdi and Michael Palmer

18.40

Panel Discussion on Vaccinations                 

With Mike Yeadon, Sucharit Bhakdi, Michael Palmer and Taylor Hudak

19.00

Debate on Vaccine Passports

With Patrick Henningsen and Guests

Session IV : The Hour of Justice

19.30

Reviving the Nuremberg Codex                  

Conversation with Vera Sharav, Sucharit Bhakdi and Catherine Austin Fitts

19.50

The Hour of Justice                 

With Reiner Feullmich, Vera Sharav, Mary Holland, Patrick Henningsen and Guest

20.30

Final Panel Discussion

With Sucharit Bhakdi, Thomas Binder, Catherine Austin Fitts and Reiner Fuellmich, led by Michael Palmer

21.45

Closing Remarks by Sucharit Bhakdi
 

Go here for lifestream.

Category:

Activism, Treatment, vaccines, Viruses

Comments Off on Gold Standard COVID Science in Practice: An Interdisciplinary Symposium

Can A Tick Be Tested For Lyme Disease? And How I Overcame My Fear of Ticks

https://danielcameronmd.com/cant-count-testing-engorged-ticks/

CAN A TICK BE TESTED FOR LYME DISEASE?

Researchers examined the prevalence of ticks in the Quebec region, along with the frequency of engorged ticks carrying Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb), the causative agent of Lyme disease. Their findings suggest that tick testing may not always be an effective tool in determining the risk of infection.

By 
Ticks can be tested for the Lyme disease bacteria and other tick-borne pathogens. But the accuracy of test results may depend on a ticks lifecycle stage.

A study by Gasmi et al. found that results may not be accurate when testing ticks which are engorged. [1] The authors examined 4,596 I. scapularis (blacklegged) ticks removed from individuals living in Quebec.

They found that 24.9% of the non-engorged blacklegged ticks were infected with Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb), the causative agent of Lyme disease.

Engorged ticks were expected to have an even higher rate of infection with the Lyme disease bacteria. But the prevalence was much lower with only 8.9% of engorged ticks testing positive for the Lyme disease agent. These findings are consistent with those from another Canadian study. [2]

Engorged ticks were expected to have an even higher rate of infection with the Lyme disease bacteria. But the prevalence was much lower.

It is still unclear why testing of engorged ticks is not accurately revealing the higher prevalence of Bb infection. The authors suggest that it could be due to the presence of inhibitors in the blood meal [3] or problems with the collection and transportation of engorged ticks.

Perhaps these findings were “due to simpler reasons such as the greater likelihood that un-engorged ticks remained alive up to DNA extraction, while engorged ticks may well have died days or weeks before testing,” noted Gasmi.

In other words, a tick can be tested for Lyme disease but it isn’t always a reliable tool in determining your risk of infection. If an engorged tick is removed and tested, it is likely to be negative for the Borrelia burgdorferi bacteria.

References:
  1. Gasmi S, Ogden NH, Leighton PA, Lindsay LR, Thivierge K. Analysis of the human population bitten by Ixodes scapularis ticks in Quebec, Canada: Increasing risk of Lyme disease. Ticks Tick Borne Dis. 2016.
  2. Dibernardo A, Cote T, Ogden NH, Lindsay LR. The prevalence of Borrelia miyamotoi infection, and co-infections with other Borrelia spp. in Ixodes scapularis ticks collected in Canada. Parasit Vectors. 2014;7:183.
  3. Wilson IG. Inhibition and facilitation of nucleic acid amplification. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1997;63(10):3741-3751.

_____________________

**Comment**

Great reminder that yet again, testing is an imperfect tool for all things Lyme/MSIDS related. This inability to positively identify the presence of infections has plagued doctors and patients alike, but must be accepted and contended with, which is why experienced doctors understand the importance of diagnosing patients clinically based upon symptoms.

Further, I often remind frustrated patients that even IF their test or tick test were to come back positive, it’s highly unlikely they will be treated appropriately as there is often coinfection involvement which requires different medications as well as the fact 28 days or less of the doxycycline monotherapy has failed repeatedly – yet is still used despite evidence to the contrary.  

If you suspect you are infected, get to a Lyme literate doctor asap.  It will save you money, time, and heartache in the end.

For more:

https://rawlsmd.com/health-articles/overcome-your-fear-of-ticks-and-get-outside?

by Dr. Bill Rawls
Updated 6/25/21

Considering that my life was totally disrupted by chronic Lyme disease for more than ten years, you might find it alarming to learn that I walk in the woods with bare legs. And although this might sound risky, I haven’t had any tick bites since my recovery. I’ve had ticks on me, but I haven’t been bitten.

Like many people who contract Lyme, my aversion to ticks kept me removed from nature. So what finally changed my fear?

I became tick aware — doubling down on prevention and keeping tabs on where I go, how I go, when I go, and what I do before and after I go to minimize risk factors. And in the end, my love of the outdoors prevailed. Being in nature is where I’ve always gained strength, and I had to find my way back to heal fully.

Finding My Way Back Nature

My first foray back into nature began at the beach at a state park near my home. Long walks were perfect for generating endorphins, and the sea air did me good. However, as my strength improved, I needed more of a challenge, so I began venturing onto the trails that wove through the tall grasses of the sand dunes and maritime forests of the park.  (See link for article)

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing, Ticks

Comments Off on Can A Tick Be Tested For Lyme Disease? And How I Overcame My Fear of Ticks

Science Journals Engaged in Massive Disinformation Campaign

July 27, 2021

**UPDATE Sept. 2022**

This important article shows how medical journals and 86% of clinical trials are funded by Big Pharma, which means journal articles are nothing more than marketing machines.

https://takecontrol.substack.com/p/science-journals-disinformation-campaign

Science journals engaged in massive disinformation campaign

July 13, 2021

These highly regarded scientific journals got caught censoring important facts and stifling scientific debate, deriding anything that didn’t protect their Chinese interests

by Dr. Joseph Mercola

STORY AT-A-GLANCE

  • The Lancet and Nature have both promoted the natural origin theory for SARS-CoV-2, and protected the theory by refusing to publish counter arguments and/or publishing scientific statements by individuals with serious conflicts of interest
  • The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission included Peter Daszak, Ph.D., president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). He was recently taken off the Commission due to controversy over his large number of conflicts of interest
  • The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission also includes Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. Anderson’s Commission biography does not mention that she worked at the WIV
  • In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” The submission was rejected with the justification that the topic was “not a priority” for the journal
  • Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime, and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate

More than a year ago, in February 2020, a group of 27 scientists wrote a letter published in The Lancet condemning “conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin.”1

Although The Lancet — like other medical journals — requires contributors to disclose financial or personal interests that might be viewed as possible conflicts of interests with their submissions, the 27 authors declared they had “no competing interests.”

June 21, 2021, The Lancet published an addendum admitting that “some readers have questioned the validity of this disclosure, particularly as it relates to one of the authors, Peter Daszak.”2

As a result, The Lancet asked the 27 signers to “re-evaluate” their competing interests and to declare any “financial and nonfinancial relationships that may be relevant to interpreting the content of their manuscript.” So far, Daszak has updated his previous claim of having no competing interests to include a 416-word disclosure statement clarifying that, indeed, he had several conflicts of interest.

First, he is the president of EcoHealth Alliance, a nonprofit organization that receives funding from a “range of U.S. Government funding agencies and non-governmental sources.”

Second — and most importantly — Daszak also explained that, although its work with China is currently unfunded, he and the Alliance have collaborated with various universities and organizations on research in China, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV). Specifically, this work includes studies of bats and viruses, including “the isolation of three bat SARS-related coronaviruses that are now used as reagents to test therapeutics and vaccines.”

The Lancet Accused of Kowtowing to China

The COVID pandemic has brought attention to any number of problems within the academic arena. Disturbingly, we’ve discovered that scientific journals held in high regard for many decades — The Lancet has been around for 198 years — are colluding to censor important facts and stifle scientific debate. The Lancet statement deriding the lab leak theory as a conspiracy theory to be ignored is a prime example. As reported by the Daily Mail, June 26, 2021:3

“The Lancet letter, signed by 27 experts, played a key part in silencing scientific, political and media discussion of any idea that this pandemic might have begun with a lab incident rather than spilling over naturally from animals.

It was even reportedly used by Facebook to flag articles exploring the lab leak hypothesis as ‘false information’ … Yet it emerged later that The Lancet statement was covertly drafted by British scientist Peter Daszak — a long-term collaborator with the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which was carrying out high-risk research on bat coronaviruses and had known safety issues …

Four months later, The Lancet set up a ‘Covid-19 Commission’ to assist governments and scrutinize the origins. It was led by Jeffrey Sachs … Incredibly, he backed Daszak to lead his commission’s 12-person taskforce investigating Covid’s origins — joined by five fellow signatories to The Lancet statement …

Last week The Lancet finally ‘recused’ him from its commission and published an ‘addendum’ to its statement detailing some of his Chinese links. Yet critics say the journal has still failed to admit that six more signatories to that February statement have ties to Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance as directors or partners.

‘It would have been better for The Lancet to have stated that Daszak’s and other signers’ previous declarations were untruthful and to have attached an editorial expression of concern,’ said Richard Ebright, a bio-security expert and professor of chemical biology at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

Now The Mail on Sunday has learned that The Lancet is set to publish a second statement by these signatories that presses the case that Covid probably emerged through natural ‘zoonotic’ transmission from animals to humans.”

Richard Horton, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet is now being criticized for his long defense and support of the Chinese regime, and is accused of using The Lancet to pursue political causes and stifle scientific debate.4

In January 2021, 14 global experts submitted a letter to The Lancet in which they argued that “the natural origin is not supported by conclusive arguments and that a lab origin cannot be formally discarded.” Horton rejected the submission, stating it was “not a priority” for the journal.5

“The Lancet also published an entirely made up study claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. This fraudulent paper made the media rounds and led to countries banning the drug’s use against COVID-19.”

Any medical journal worthy of a good reputation needs to be an open platform for wide-ranging debate. Horton’s refusal to publish the other side of the origins argument has without a doubt damaged the credibility and reputation of the journal. Tory MP Bob Seely told the Daily Mail:6

“The claims of a cover-up over the most important scientific issue of our time grow stronger by the day. It is vital we get to the truth over what appears to have been a cover-up on the pandemic origins with the collusion of journals such as The Lancet.”

Let’s also remember that The Lancet published an entirely fake study claiming hydroxychloroquine was dangerous. This paper using completely fabricated data made the media rounds and led to countries banning the drug’s use against COVID-19.

This too raises serious questions about the journal’s credibility. How was this fraud not discovered during the peer review process? Could it be that The Lancet allowed it because it would help protect the roll-out of profitable new COVID drugs and “vaccines”?

What’s Behind Science Journals’ Censorship?

What could possibly be behind science journals’ decision to silence debate in what appears to be a concerted effort to protect Chinese interests? In a June 18, 2021, article,7 Matt Ridley suggests it might have to do with the fact that “scientific papers have become increasingly dependent on the fees that Chinese scientists pay to publish in them, plus advertisements from Chinese firms and subscriptions from Chinese institutions.”

The Lancet is not alone in its less than objective stance on China. In 2017, the Nature journal admitted it censors articles containing words like “Taiwan,” “Tibet” and “cultural revolution” in its Chinese editions at the request of the Chinese government.8 “In April 2020 Nature ran an editorial apologizing for its ‘error’ in ‘associating the virus with Wuhan’ in its news coverage,” Ridley writes.9

Nature also attached an editorial note to several old articles, saying they were being misused “as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered,” and that “there is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.”

One of those articles, published in 2015, was titled “Engineered bat virus stirs debate over risky research.” The research being questioned was done by WIV researchers.

Gaslighting Alert: Abusers Now Play the Victim Card

For the past year and a half, scientists, doctors, reporters and anyone else who dared point out blatant discrepancies in the natural origins narrative have been attacked and painted as quacks and dangerous conspiracy theorists. They’ve been censored, deplatformed and publicly defamed and shamed. Many a fine career has been ruined or seriously tarnished by baseless personal attacks.

Now that undeniable evidence is finally reaching critical mass, natural origin defenders are playing the victim card. For example, Amy Maxmen, Ph.D., a journalist for Nature for the past 13 years, has been covering the SARS-CoV-2 origin debate. In a May 26, 2021, tweet, she stated the “debate over a lab-leak has become toxic and risky.”10

Angela Rasmussen, Ph.D., a natural origin proponent, responded saying that “the origins debate has become a toxic milieu dominated by opportunists, dilettantes, racist/misogynist assholes, and trolls.”11 Rasmussen claims she’s been personally attacked and abused for trying to explain the natural origin theory.

The irony is that the same people who abused others for talking about the lab leak theory are now getting a taste of their own medicine, and they don’t like it. They’re the ones who have been peddling misinformation all along, and as the masses are catching on to the deceit, they’re catching heat.

To deflect and finger-point yet again, abusers are now playing the victim. Another tactic is to claim that attacks on them are attacks on science itself. Dr. Anthony Fauci, for example, has stated this on more than one occasion already.12 13 In a June 2021 MSNBC interview, Fauci said criticizing him was “very dangerous,” and that: 14 15

“A lot of what you’re seeing as attacks on me quite frankly are attacks on science because all of the things I have spoken about from the very beginning have been fundamentally based on science … If you are trying to get at me as a public health official and scientist, you’re really attacking not only Dr. Anthony Fauci, you are attacking science.”

His comments didn’t go over well, based on social media responses.16 Reporter Glenn Greenwald’s Tweet will suffice to summarize the general consensus:17

“Beyond the dangerous arrogance and pomposity of proclaiming ‘anyone who criticizes me is attacking Science’ — thus placing himself off-limits from questioning — he *admitted* he purposely issued false, anti-science, politicized claims … Once you *admit* that you made false statements in violation of The Science™, you don’t then get to equate yourself to The Science™ such that attacks on you are attacks on it.”

Another example is that of Dr. Peter Hotez, one of the most shockingly hateful people in the medical field who has publicly stated he wants to “snuff out” vaccine skeptics and has called for cyberwarfare measures to be deployed against me and others who share vaccine safety information. Coincidentally, this public plea was published in the journal Nature.18

This man, who has spewed all sorts of vile language at parents of vaccine-injured children and called for physical harm and imprisonment of people who don’t agree with the one-size-fits-all vaccine agenda is now complaining about getting bombarded with “anti-vaxx hate speech.”19

Billions of Dollars at Stake

To circle back to the question of why prominent and previously respected science journals are publishing propaganda and suppressing open discussion, the most likely reason — aside from their dependence on Chinese publishing fees and advertising dollars — is the fact that if SARS-CoV-2 is proven to be a manmade virus that escaped from a lab (regardless of its location), billions of dollars in funding for gain-of-function research and even vaccine research could evaporate.

As a publisher of research, it makes sense that journals would be willing to protect the research industry as a whole, and provide a platform for chosen spokespeople — such as Hotez — who shamelessly promote the official narrative, no matter how tenuous or unscientific it might be, or how clear the conflicts of interest.

Here’s another case in point: June 28, 2021, Bloomberg tweeted out a short video featuring Danielle Anderson, an Australian WIV virologist who left Wuhan shortly before the pandemic broke out. Anderson says she “does not believe” the virus is manmade. In response, Hotez tweeted:20

“And we’re in agreement: SARS-2 coronavirus has natural origins, was not produced through GOF [gain-of-function] research, and probably has nothing to do with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.”

Coincidentally, Anderson is also on The Lancet’s COVID-19 Commission,21 the same Commission that Daszak was on. Her Lancet Commission bio22 says nothing about her work at the WIV, only that she is a senior research fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia. Why is that? Is Anderson’s link to the WIV yet another “random coincidence” that has no bearing on her message? Or is it part of a pattern?

I believe the engineering of viruses and other pathogens is one of the greatest threats to life on earth at this point. We lucked out with SARS-CoV-2, as it turned out to be far less lethal than initially predicted. The next time we might not be so lucky.

As reported in July 2020, China has plans to erect high-security biolabs in all of its 23 provinces, despite concerns about leakage risks.23 Worldwide, there are hundreds of laboratories where this kind of research is taking place on a daily basis. Considering the history of lab leaks, it’s only a matter of time before something truly nasty gets out.

This is why we must get to the bottom of where SARS-CoV-2 came from. We must know if it was manmade because, if so, we need to ban gain-of-function research aimed at making pathogens more dangerous to humans.

Yes, there are harmless gain-of-function experiments, and that’s not what we’re talking about here, although, harmless experiments can, of course, be steps in a process that ultimately results in a dangerous bioweapon. Overall, I think we need to seriously reconsider the need and value of genetic manipulation of viruses and the creation of synthetic ones.

reprinted with permission

Sources:

____________________

For more:

Category:

Activism, research, vaccines, Viruses

Comments Off on Science Journals Engaged in Massive Disinformation Campaign

CDC Stops Counting ‘Non Severe’ “Vaccinated” COVID Cases Back in May. Lowers PCR for “Vaccinated” in April – Nothing to See Here

https://www.businessinsider.com/risk-of-delta-variant-cdc-stopped-tracking-cases-vaccinated-2021-7

The CDC stopped tracking most COVID-19 cases in vaccinated people. That makes it hard to know how dangerous Delta really is.

Aria Bendix Jul 3, 2021
coronavirus testing
A nurse administers a COVID-19 test at a testing site in Suffolk County, New York, on December 18, 2020.   John Paraskevas/Newsday via Getty ImagesImportant excerpts from article below:
  • The CDC stopped monitoring non-severe COVID-19 cases among vaccinated people in May.
  • It’s hard to assess Delta’s risk without knowing what mild breakthrough cases look like — or whether they’re becoming more common.

Since May 1, the agency has only reported and investigated coronavirus infections among vaccinated people that resulted in hospitalization or death.

In a recent blog post for Harvard Health Publishing, Robert Shmerling, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, called the CDC’s decision not to track all breakthrough cases “surprising” and “disappointing.”

The coronavirus is going to stick around forever. Get ready for the new normal.  (See link for article)

____________________

**Comment**

While the article is riddled with inaccuracies, the take-away here is the CDC has STOPPED counting the majority of cases in “vaccinated” people.  I reported on this fact earlier but it bares mentioning again as this decision is muddying all data being used, which is supplying the rhetoric and tyrannical action.  There is no way to know the impact of anything at this point, with data purposely twisted for a predetermined outcome.

BTW: it was done numerous times before:

But the fun doesn’t end here.

In April, the CDC issued new guidance to laboratories recommending reducing the RT-PCR CT value to 28 cycles, but only for those fully “vaccinated” individuals being tested for COVID.

In other words, lowering the CT threshold parameter will lead to missing infectious persons, and will give the illusion that “vaccinated” people aren’t contracting COVID.

The first question you must ask is, why would the CDC do such a thing?  When you understand their MO; the long and sordid history of corruption, conflicts of interest, and rigging variables for their own nefarious purposes – you can quickly surmise why.  They don’t want people to know the full story, because the full story would reveal that these “break-through” cases (getting COVID after being fully immunized) are far more prolific than the CDC wants to admit to – proving the injections are unnecessary and ineffective.

“Breakthrough” cases can also be deadly, with one study showing 6% end in death. As of June 28, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports 4,686 breakthrough cases resulting in death and hospitalization.

But these deaths and maimed bodies don’t matter, because it’s all for the greater good.

For some historical perspective, watch how “60 Minutes”covered the 1976 swine flu mass vaccination program which was halted after 4,000 reported adverse events.  In contrast, there are 463,457 adverse events reported after the COVID injections from December 2020 to July, 2021, and less than 1% are typically recorded.

For anyone reading this website, you already understand that the CDC owns the patents on not only the very pathogens, but on the testing which it rigs for its own pre-determined outcome. They’ve been doing this with Lyme/MSIDS for over 40 years and continue to get away with arbitrary testing cut-offs, which keeps thousands from diagnosis and treatment.  They are quite experienced at twisting data.

The inconvenient truths that the injections aren’t effective, safe, or needed isn’t good for Big Pharma, Big Tech, mainstream media, FDA, CDC, NIH, or our government – all of which stand to gain from these lucrative gene-therapy injections that aren’t vaccines.

Important quote:

“By tracking only cases requiring hospitalization or causing death, we may miss the chance to learn how people with ‘milder’ disease are affected by Delta or other variant infections, such as how long their symptoms last and how the infection may disrupt their lives.” Robert Shmerling, associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School

But, that is exactly the point.

Now only severe cases will be recorded, to downplay the fact the injections don’t stop infection or death.

Further, they are paying students to persuade people to get the jab and attempting to divide us by blaming the unvaccinated for the pandemic, particularly those who vote conservatively, even though numerous polls and studies have proven this tenant is inaccurate.

Meanwhile, these same corrupt ‘authorities’ are censoring and bad-mouthing cheap, effective treatments that work, so a misinformed public continues to believe their only recourse is to get the dangerous but lucrative COVID shots, our own government developed.

They are also hiding the number of fully “vaccinated” White House staffers who have contracted COVID.
Contracting COVID after being “vaccinated” is an inconvenient truth for the powers that be that must be denied at all costs.

For more:

Category:

Activism, vaccines, Viruses

Comments Off on CDC Stops Counting ‘Non Severe’ “Vaccinated” COVID Cases Back in May. Lowers PCR for “Vaccinated” in April – Nothing to See Here

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 Publish 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

___________________

For more:

Category:

Lyme, Pregnancy

Comments Off on Lyme & Pregnancy