As awareness of Lyme disease as a public health threat increases, so does the concern around its transmission and treatment. People are starting to realise the very real danger of Lyme infection, and they have a lot of questions, especially around alternative ways Lyme disease is transmitted.
Understanding the basics of Lyme transmission, diagnosis and treatment can go a long way in helping allay fears around this increasingly common disease. Let’s break down some of the most popular questions people have about Lyme disease.
How do you catch Lyme disease?
Lyme disease is a bacterial infection caused by a corkscrew-shaped bacterium known as Borrelia burgdorferi. It is typically transmitted to humans by Ixodes ticks, also known as black-legged or deer ticks. When ticks feed on rodents, other small mammals or certain birds that are infected with Borrelia burgdorferi, the ticks themselves become infected. When a tick carrying Borrelia burgdorferi bites a human, the bacterium spreads from the tick to the bitten human, leading to Lyme disease.
Can you catch Lyme disease without a tick bite?
Although far less common than tick bites, there are some additional ways that Lyme is transmitted. Here are three alternative ways of transmission:
During pregnancy
There is some evidence that Lyme disease can spread from a woman who is pregnant to her placenta, leading to potential complications. However, it appears that these problems can be avoided when the Lyme-infected mother receives antibiotic treatment for her Lyme disease. Lyme disease has not been found to be transmitted through breast milk.
Through a blood transfusion
Scientists have determined that the bacteria responsible for Lyme disease can live in the blood of an actively infected person even after it has been drawn and placed in storage. Although there are no known cases of Lyme infection through a blood transfusion, a person with Lyme disease who is receiving treatment should not give blood. After antibiotic treatment has been completed, however, Lyme patients may be eligible blood donors.
During sex
Scientists are very much at odds over whether Lyme disease can be transmitted sexually. While some research indicates that Lyme bacteria may be passed from person to person during sex, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) states that there is no credible evidence supporting the claim that Lyme disease can be transmitted through sexual contact.
What should you do if you’ve been bitten by a tick?
Because tick bites are the main way that Lyme disease is transmitted, taking precautions to avoid being bitten can be your first line of defence. Some of the ways to protect yourself from ticks are:
Avoid wooded areas, long grass, fallen logs and other tick habitats.
If you’re going to be in an area where you may be exposed to ticks, dress protectively. Wear a hat, long-sleeved shirt and long trousers tucked into your socks. If you have long hair, pull it back.
Use tick repellent. Active ingredients that have been shown to repel ticks include DEET, picaridin and lemon eucalyptus.
Check for ticks periodically while outdoors, and take a shower as soon as you get home.
If you’ve been bitten by a tick, do your best to remain calm. Avoid methods like smearing Vaseline on the tick or burning it with a match, as neither of these works to remove the tick. Instead, follow these steps:
Take care to avoid squeezing or squashing the tick.
Using a tweezers with a fine point or a special tool designed to remove ticks, grasp the tick as close to your skin as possible.
Steadily and firmly pull the tick straight out.
Once the tick is out, disinfect the bite area and wash your hands thoroughly.
Place the tick in a small bottle or plastic bag. If it’s still alive (which is preferable for identification purposes), add a small green leaf or damp tissue to the container.
Explore your options for having the tick tested.
How do you know if you have Lyme disease?
After you’ve been bitten for a tick, it’s important to watch for symptoms of Lyme disease so you can seek treatment as soon as possible. Symptoms of early Lyme disease include:
An expanding red rash that sometimes resembles a bullseye or target
Headaches and neck stiffness
Fever
Fatigue
Joint pain and swelling
Weakness or paralysis of facial muscles
Lightheadedness or fainting
Heart palpitations or chest pain
Seek medical attention immediately if you experience any or all of these symptoms of Lyme disease. The sooner the disease is diagnosed and treated, the better the chances of treating it successfully.
Knowing you’re at risk for Lyme disease can be scary, especially when the disease seems to be spreading so rapidly. But arming yourself with knowledge about Lyme disease and the different ways it’s transmitted can help you be more aware of what you need to do to protect yourself.
___________________
**Comment**
The same CDC that is spreading misinformation about COVID-19 has been spreading misinformation about Lyme/MSIDS for 40 years.
Mayla Hsu, Ph.D., Director of Science and Research for GLA joined Ranger Ready Founder and CEO, Chris L. Fuentes, to give helpful tips on how the whole family can safely enjoy the outdoors.
Dr. Hsu & Fuentes addressed common misconceptions regarding ticks and Lyme disease.
“Your backyard is probably the most likely place to be bitten by a tick or bring a tick into your house,” said Fuentes.
I appreciated the video on how to apply repellent. Wearing a tucked in undershirt is smart (albeit hot!) as well as long white socks, tucking pants into the socks. Make sure to also spray shoes. I make everyone strip clothing off in garage, and then put all clothing into dryer on high for 20 min. Then, take a shower when coming indoors. You will need to apply permethrin onto clothing the day before use so there is plenty of time to dry. Spray ALL clothing, hats, socks, pants, shirts, etc. Picaradin is for your skin that you apply before you head outside. You need both types of repellents.
When talking about ticks – she states, “you can squash it.”Please, do not touch the tick if you squash it as you could potentially become infected this way. Many recommend testing the tick.Some states will do this free for residents. Unfortunately, Wisconsin does NOT do this.
More on Ranger Ready: https://rangerready.com They state their product lasts for 12 hours against ticks and mosquitoes. (I have no affiliation with this company)
When you have Lyme disease, the pursuit of sleep can become your white whale: You know you need it to help your body heal, and yet sleep evades you each time your head hits the pillow — even when you’re bone-tired and doing everything right to bring on slumber.
Why is sleep dysfunction so common among Lyme patients, and what can you do to get the restorative rest your body needs to fire up its natural healing processes?
Join a live webinar with Dr. Bill Rawls, author of the bestselling book Unlocking Lyme, who knows firsthand what it’s like to live with chronic Lyme disease and related sleep issues. He’ll shed new light on how Lyme sabotages sleep on a cellular and hormonal level, and share natural ways to simultaneously support your recovery and cultivate much-needed sleep.
PLUS: Don’t miss an exclusive gift for webinar attendees, and have your questions ready for a LIVE Q&A on Lyme and chronic pain with Dr. Rawls.
Dr. Rawls will discuss:
Why sleep dysfunction is both a key component of Lyme disease and an obstacle to recovery
How it’s possible to feel completely exhausted at night and yet still struggle to sleep
Hidden sleep disruptors we encounter every day
The 6 key steps to reclaiming restorative rest
The best herbs and natural remedies that do the double duty of encouraging Lyme recovery and cultivating normal sleep
Numerous insights during the live Q&A with Dr. Rawls
The controversy over hydroxychloroquine is perhaps one of the most perplexing and frustrating. Doctors and health experts around the world have spoken out both for and against the use of the drug, some reporting spectacular benefits while others warn of mortal dangers
In an international poll of 6,227 doctors in 30 countries, 37% rated the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine as “the most effective therapy” for COVID-19. In Spain, where the drug was used by 72% of doctors, it was rated “the most effective therapy” by 75% of them
French microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult reported a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin administered immediately upon diagnosis led to recovery and “virological cure” — nondetection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs — in 91.7% of patients
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has found treating COVID-19 patients who had confirmed positive test results “as early as possible after symptom onset” with zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin lowered mortality fivefold
Zinc appears to be key. If given early, zinc along with a zinc ionophore such as hydroxychloroquine or quercetin should, at least theoretically, help lower the viral load and prevent the immune system from becoming overloaded
There’s no shortage of controversies surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, but the controversy over hydroxychloroquine is perhaps one of the most perplexing and frustrating. Doctors and health experts around the world have spoken out both for and against the use of the drug, some reporting spectacular benefits1 while others warn of mortal dangers.2
Game-Changer or Deadly Treatment?
In one international poll3 of 6,227 doctors in 30 countries, 37% rated the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine as “the most effective therapy” for COVID-19. The poll was done by Sermo, the world’s largest health care data collection company and social platform for physicians.
In Spain, where the drug was used by 72% of doctors, it was rated “the most effective therapy” by 75% of them. The typical dose used by a majority of doctors was 400 milligrams per day.
French science-prize winning microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, founder and director of the research hospital Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection,4reported5,6 that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, administered immediately upon diagnosis, led to recovery and “virological cure” — nondetection of SARS-CoV-27 in nasal swabs — in 91.7% of patients.
According to Raoult, the drug combination “avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosness in most cases.” No cardiac toxicity was observed using a dose of 200 mg three times a day for 10 days, along with 500 mg of azithromycin on Day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for the next four days. The risk of cardiac toxicity was ameliorated by carefully screening patients and performing serial EKGs.
As reported by The Highwire (see video above), July 2, 2020, Raoult is quoted as saying failure to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to a COVID-19 patient “should be grounds for malpractice.” Meanwhile, University of Oxford investigators claim the drug is useless and shouldn’t be prescribed at all in hospitalized patients.8
An interesting website tracking hydroxychloroquine trials is c19study.com.9 It lists more than 40 studies and meta-analyses showing positive results of the drug, compared to nine that have reached a negative conclusion.
The Zelenko Regimen
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a primary care physician in Monroe, New York, has also reported excellent results using the drug. He told radio host Sean Hannity he’d had a near-100% success rate using hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc sulfate for five days. “I’ve seen remarkable results; it really prevents progression of disease, and patients get better,” he told Hannity.
In the video above, Del Bigtree interviews Zelenko about the criticism levied against him for promoting use of the drug. According to Zelenko, hydroxychloroquine deniers “are guilty of mass murder.”
He points out hydroxychloroquine has been used for decades and is safe even for pregnant and nursing women, so he felt very comfortable prescribing it off-label. He prescribed 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine twice a day, 500 mg of azithromycin once a day and 220 mg of zinc once a day, for five days.
The treatment was initiated within the first five days of clinical symptoms of COVID-19, based on “clinical suspicion” of SARS-CoV-2 infection (not lab confirmed testing, as test results took three days and viral load typically explodes by Day 6).
June 30, 2020, Zelenko and two co-authors published a study,10 currently in preprint, which found treating COVID-19 patients who had confirmed positive test results “as early as possible after symptom onset” with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin “was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and five times less all-cause deaths.”
As noted by Zelenko in Bigtree’s interview, the real virus killer in this combination is actually the zinc. The hydroxychloroquine merely acts as a zinc transporter, allowing it to get into the cell. The antibiotic, meanwhile, helps prevent secondary infections.
Concerted Coordinated Effort to Inhibit Use of Effective Drug?
According to Dr. Meryl Nass, the wildly divergent views on hydroxychloroquine appear to have little to do with its safety and effectiveness against COVID-19, and more to do with a concerted and coordinated effort to prevent its use. In the video11 above, Chris Martensen Ph.D., also reviews the “profound lack of integrity” we’re currently seeing when it comes to hydroxychloroquine.
Indeed, there are several reasons for why certain individuals and companies might not want an inexpensive generic drug to work against this pandemic illness. (A 14-day supply costs just $2 to manufacture12 and can retail for as little as $20.13)
One of the most obvious reasons is because it might eliminate the need for a vaccine or other antiviral medication currently under development.14 Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been invested, and vaccine makers are hoping for a payday in the billions if not trillions of dollars. In a June 27, 2020, blog post, Nass points out:15
“It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past three months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe.16
The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, COVID-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.
Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients. And so the message was crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for COVID-19. It doesn’t make sense, but it seems to have worked. Were these acts carefully orchestrated? You decide.
Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going? To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich?”
The fight over hydroxychloroquine may also have political underpinnings. As noted by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson in a May 18, 2020, Full Measure report, “never before has a discussion about choices of medicine been so laced with political overtones.”
Trials Undermine Safety and Efficacy by Using Toxic Doses
Nass’ article17 lists what has occurred with regard to hydroxychloroquine so far, the intention being to keep it as a living document that will be added to as time goes on.
Nass says she wrote it in such a way that it might be read as a “to do list … to be carried out by those who pull the strings,” with the intention of suppressing use of the drug. At the time of this writing, Nass’ list18 contains 27 bullet point entries. I highly recommend reading through it, as I will only highlight a select few here.
Several items on Nass’ list detail the various ways in which safe and effective use of the drug were undermined, which allowed for a false narrative of danger to be crafted.
For example, Nass points out that three large, randomized multicenter clinical trials all used excessive dosages known to be toxic.19 These include the following. She also discusses these trials in other in-depth articles:20,21,22
• The U.K. Recovery Trial23,24,25 — Funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and the U.K. government through Oxford University,26 this study randomly assigned patients to usual care or to one of five primary drug treatments: lopinavir-ritonavir; a corticosteroid (low-dose dexamethasone); hydroxychloroquine; tociizumab; or azithromycin. They also used convalescent plasma.
Patients received 2,400 mg of hydroxychloroquine during the first 24 hours — three to six times higher than the daily dosage recommended27 followed by 400 mg every 12 hours for nine more day for a cumulative dose of 9,200 mg over 10 days. The trial ended its hydroxychloroquine arm on June 4, reporting “no benefit.”
• The Solidarity Trial28 — Launched by the World Health Organization and funded by 43 countries and 203,000 individuals and organizations,29 this trial also compares standard of care against four drug options, including hydroxychloroquine, among patients in 35 countries.
Strangely, the WHO does not specify the daily dosage used in the trial. However, the registration of the Canadian30 and Norwegian31 portions of the trial lists a dosage of 2,000 mg on the first day, and a cumulative dose of 8,800 mg over 10 days. This is only 400 mg less than the U.K.32 Recovery Trial’s toxic dose.
The hydroxychloroquine arm was halted May 25,33 following the publication of the Surgisphere study34 in The Lancet. June 3, after tremendous controversy had been raised over the veracity of the study, and a day before the study was retracted for using fabricated data,35,36 (and this despite having undergone peer-review), the hydroxychloroquine arm was restarted.37
June 17, 2020, the hydroxychloroquine arm was stopped again, this time “based on evidence from the Solidarity trial, U.K.’s Recovery trial and a Cochrane review of other evidence on hydroxychloroquine.”38
• The REMAP-CAP Trial (Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia)39 — Here, patients either received nothing, a combination of lopinavir and ritonavir, or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with lopinavir and ritonavir.
REMAP used the same toxic dose as the Recovery Trial but for six days instead of 10. What’s more, only critically ill hospitalized patients were included in this trial. Nass addresses other concerns as well in her June 19 blog40 about this study.
Is Lifesaving Medicine Withheld to Ensure Profits?
What possessed the study designers and investigators of these three huge clinical trials to use such exaggerated dosages? Hydroxychloroquine has been on the market for 65 years and both toxic and the effective dosages for a variety of ailments are well documented. Doctors who have reported excellent treatment results in the field stayed within the recommended hydroxychloroquine dosages.
Were they trying to purposely sabotage these trials using dosages known to be toxic? Doctors have also reported that best results are observed when the drug is administered early, while symptoms are still mild or moderate, yet in these trials the drug was not given until it was too late.
A July 1, 2020, retrospective analysis41,42,43 of 2,541 patients in the Henry Ford Hospital System in Detroit, Michigan, found use of hydroxychloroquine alone cut mortality by more than half, from 26.4% to 13.5%. (Hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin had a mortality rate of 20.1%, and azithromycin alone had a mortality rate of 22.4%.)
More than 90% of the patients had received the drug or drugs within 48 hours of admission into the hospital. No adverse heart-related events were observed among those given hydroxychloroquine.
All three trials above that used toxic hydroxychloroquine doses — Recovery, Solidarity and REMAP — also failed to include zinc, which appears to be a key factor. As noted by Zelenko above, the hydroxychloroquine is really only used to drive the zinc in to the cells. Nass observes:44
“The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:
WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.
In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.”
Facets That Need To Be Discussed
Aside from that, there are two additional facets of what’s going on that are not yet being discussed:
1. What we’re seeing happen right now is that patients are being turned into guinea pigs en masse. As of June 16, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated the only way a patient should receive hydroxychloroquine is by enlisting in a clinical trial.45
Similarly, in the U.K., treating physicians have been asked to enroll all hospitalized COVID-19 patients into the Recovery and REMAP trials. As of July 9, 2020, Recovery had enrolled more than 12,000 subjects.46
What this means is that thousands of patients are having their treatment selected via randomization by computer rather than by their own doctors’ choice of treatment. The U.K., by the way, has one of the highest COVID-19 death rates in Europe already.47 By removing physician and patient choice of treatment, the death toll might end up being far worse than it needs to be.
Importantly, will this trend continue post-COVID? Now that doctors are being groomed to accept having their patients treated by randomization rather than with the treatment any given doctor believes to be best, will they sign up their future non-COVID patients as subjects just as easily?
2. Secondly, three recent papers48,49,50 argue that the excessive doses of hydroxychloroquine used in the Recovery Trial were not actually toxic. This creates a serious contradiction that has yet to be addressed. As noted by Nass in an email to me:
“For argument’s sake, say they are right, and even high doses are safe. Well then, why are the FDA, European Medicines Agency, pharmacy boards, governors, etc. restricting this drug that is so safe you can even overdose it and be fine?
Either the drug is so toxic at normal doses that it can’t be used for a life-threatening illness, or it is perfectly safe at extremely high doses. You can’t have it both ways.“
Zinc Is a Crucial Key
In conclusion, let us circle back to where we started — with the reports of treatment success. A study51 posted on the prepublication server medRxiv, May 8, 2020, compared outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with either hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone, or Zelenko’s triplet regimen of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc.
While the addition of zinc sulfate had no impact on the length of hospitalization, ICU duration or duration of ventilation, univariate analysis showed it was associated with other positive effects:
Increased hospital discharge frequency
Decreased the need for ventilation
Decreased ICU admission rates
Decreased the rate of transfer to hospice for non-ICU patients
Decreased mortality
As noted by the authors:52
“After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulfate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53 …) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice remained significant (OR 0.449 …). This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.”
In short, to maximize effectiveness, you need zinc. As explained in “Is Quercetin a Safer Alternative to Hydroxychloroquine?” hydroxychloroquine acts as a zinc ionophore,53,54 meaning it shuttles zinc into your cells, and zinc appears to be a “magic ingredient” required to prevent viral replication.55
If given early, zinc along with a zinc ionophore should, at least theoretically, help lower the viral load and prevent the immune system from becoming overloaded. As noted in the preprint paper, “Does Zinc Supplementation Enhance the Clinical Efficacy of Chloroquine / Hydroxychloroquine to Win Todays Battle Against COVID-19?” published April 8, 2020:56
“Besides direct antiviral effects, CQ/HCQ [chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine] specifically target extracellular zinc to intracellular lysosomes where it interferes with RNA-dependent RNA polymerase activity and coronavirus replication.
As zinc deficiency frequently occurs in elderly patients and in those with cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, or diabetes, we hypothesize that CQ/HCQ plus zinc supplementation may be more effective in reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality than CQ or HCQ in monotherapy. Therefore, CQ/HCQ in combination with zinc should be considered as additional study arm for COVID-19 clinical trials.”
So far, no major clinical trial has bothered to follow this rather commonsense advice. Unfortunately, due to the corruption and politicization of science on this matter, it’s hard to offer any clear recommendations. In the end, it probably comes down to who you trust.
Quercetin — An All-Natural Safe Home Alternative
That said, if you suspect you’ve contracted COVID-19, it probably wouldn’t hurt to give a version of Zelenko’s regimen a try, at the first sign of symptoms. As explained in “Is Quercetin a Safer Alternative to Hydroxychloroquine?” quercetin is also an ionophore and has the same mechanism of action as hydroxychloroquine — it improves zinc uptake by your cells.
Personally, I’m taking quercetin and zinc at bedtime as a prophylactic each day. The reason it’s best to take them in the evening, several hours after your last meal, and before the long fast of sleeping, is because quercetin is also a senolytic (i.e., it selectively kills senescent or old, damaged cells) that is activated by fasting. So, why not maximize the timing and use of quercetin?
Zelenko points out that the debate on HCQ is an ideological one on whether you trust real-world clinical data or only data derived from a lab. This is exactly what we face with Lyme/MSIDS. We have doctors who have successfully treated patients yet mainstream medicine sniffs at this because their clinical success hasn’t been replicated in a lab setting.
CAVALIER ATTITUDE TOWARDS LYME INFECTION IS MISPLACED
Some medical professionals and their patients have dismissed Lyme disease, believing the prevalence and potential damage a Lyme infection can cause is over-exaggerated. But what happens if your family is directly affected? A researcher from the University of Pennsylvania shares his story “Lemons and Lyme” in the Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society.
“One day, when traveling in California for a meeting, I received a call informing me that one of my sons, then aged 39, had been walking his dog when he collapsed into unconsciousness with a heart rate of 35/minute and had been taken to a local hospital,” writes Plotkin.¹ A Lyme infection was suspected.
His son was diagnosed immediately by a cardiologist familiar with Lyme disease.
“My son Alec received a pacemaker and, of course, an intravenous antibiotic,” writes Plotkin. “Fortunately, he has recovered, but his experience convinced me that a cavalier attitude towards Lyme infection is misplaced.”
Furthermore,
“An aspect of Alec’s case is instructive in that he was not exposed in the woods or someplace where ticks are an obvious hazard but within sight of his own house.”
Some people don’t get Lyme disease until they GET Lyme disease.
Plotkin SA. Lemons and Lyme. J Pediatric Infect Dis Soc. 2018;7(4):267-269
____________________
**Comment**
I’m thankful this medical professional had the cajoles to admit this. In time, the treatment of Lyme/MSIDS will get the proper attention it deserves – if only due to the fact it is going to affect so many people it will become undeniable.
What’s interesting about the MMWR paper is that one of the authors, a CDC epidemiologist, allegedly solicited IDSA doctors for evidence of harm from IV antibiotic treatments, essentially bribing them by offering co-authorship of the report if anecdotes were used. No such solicitation was made for IV treatment success stories. There has been hot debate on Lyme treatments for decades. The MMWR paper is only one example of bias which is embedded within the CDC. There are many success stories using IV therapy by a Wisconsin Doctor and IDSA founder who disagreed with his colleagues on how to treat Lyme disease. https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/04/26/cdc-playbook-learning-from-lyme/
There are many who would profit from this treatment but due to this biased paper and the propaganda it promotes, most doctors are scared to death to treat patients with IV antibiotics. This is just another great example of how doctors who treat Lyme patients have been singled out and crucified on the Lyme crucible and how politics has driven science.
Some people are so biased they couldn’t hear truth if it slapped them in the face. They don’t care if there’s a back-story of corruption – if all the research has been rigged for a predetermined outcome. All they believe in is placebo-controlled, randomized trials in black and white. Unfortunately, regarding Lyme/MSIDS, those too have been corrupted by “scientists” with conflicts of interest that reads like a rap sheet: https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2017/01/13/lyme-science-owned-by-good-ol-boys/
Hopefully, these facts are enlightening you to the fact that authorities and science are not to be solely trusted. Both are being used right now to sway people – rather than remaining objective.
Question everything and run things by your practitioner(s) who is/are working on the front-line. Get numerous opinions and then use your God-given brain to make decisions.
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/06/fraudulent-hcq-covid-19-study-in-lancet-exposed/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/24/influence-of-conflicts-of-interest-on-public-positions-in-the-covid-19-era-the-case-of-gilead-sciences/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/16/aaps-sues-fda-for-irrational-interference-of-access-to-life-saving-hydroxychloroquine/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/11/podcast-evidence-supporting-hcq-azithromycin-for-covid-19/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/09/hcq-breakthrough-icmr-finds-its-effective-in-preventing-coronavirus-expands-its-use/
Remdesivir (BTW: studies have only shown it to reduce days in hospitalization from 15 days to 10 days) https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/02/remdesivir-for-covid-19-not-backed-by-results/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/15/covid-19-drug-remdesivir-could-cost-up-to-3120-per-patient-maker-says/
Zelenko points out that the debate on HCQ is an ideological one on whether you trust real-world clinical data or only data derived from a lab. This is exactly what we face with Lyme/MSIDS. We have doctors who have successfully treated patients yet mainstream medicine sniffs at this because their clinical success hasn’t been replicated in a lab setting.