Tag Archives: Borrelia burgdorferi

Letter to Jerry Leonard

Jerry Leonard

Charlotte, North Carolina
jerryleonard999@yahoo.com

Re: An Open Letter to State Leaders

Dear Jerry,

I received an email from an individual in the UK who prefers to stay anonymous but attached a timeline document with a great deal of information similar to what you presented in your open letter to state leaders but with a UK origin. I found the following information from that document quite disturbing:

1. Vaccine development for Lyme disease requires samples from untreated and late stage Lyme patients.

2. In July 1994, SmithKlein Beecham (Now GlaxoSmithKline) filed a Lyme Disease vaccine patent for OspA proteins of Borrelia burgdorferi. In table 1 & table 4 this patent demonstrates the need for human blood, skin and spinal fluid from untreated Lyme disease patients including the late stage presentation Acrodermatitis Chronica Atrophans (ACA) which is a feature of European Lyme disease and usually presents about 20 years after initial tick bite.

My interpretation: If you immediately treat all Lyme disease without restriction where do you find a population of late stage Lyme patients?

The lead author (As you point out) of the IDSA’s “treatment-denial” guidelines for Lyme disease Gary Wormser and Susan O’Connell over in the UK both have links to the Baxter vaccine that is going into its phase 3 clinical trial. Your interpretation: Large-scale treatment-denial experiment to create a vaccine market by the national security infrastructure? ……lead author of the foremost study used to justify this treatment-denial philosophy (Mark Klempner) and the lead author of the treatment guidelines which are used to deny Lyme victims effective treatment (Gary Wormser) are all biowarfare researchers and/or biowarfare epidemiologists. Two of these individuals (Klempner, Barbour) are biowarfare lab directors. Three of them have led Lyme vaccine efforts (Barbour, Steere, Wormser). This is all making more sense now and certainly offers an explanation for the purposeful mishandling of this disease and continuous disinformation campaign along with the deliberate refusal to listen to the patient voice.

If not a congressional investigation how do we expose and correct what has been ongoing for so long at these levels?

Sincerely,

Carl Tuttle

Concerns Regarding a New Culture Method for Borrelia burgdorferi Not Approved for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease

Concerns Regarding a New Culture Method for Borrelia burgdorferi Not Approved for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/823933?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=185407FK

Christina Nelson, MD, Sally Hojvat, PhD, Barbara Johnson, PhD, Jeannine Petersen, PhD, Marty Schriefer, PhD, C. Ben Beard, PhD, Lyle Petersen, MD, Paul Mead, MD

Disclosures

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2014;63(15):333

n 2005, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding the use of Lyme disease tests whose accuracy and clinical usefulness have not been adequately established.[1] Often these are laboratory-developed tests (also known as “home brew” tests) that are manufactured and used within a single laboratory and have not been cleared or approved by FDA. Recently, CDC has received inquiries regarding a laboratory-developed test that uses a novel culture method to identify Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. Patient specimens reportedly are incubated using a two-step pre-enrichment process, followed by immunostaining with or without polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Specimens that test positive by immunostaining or PCR are deemed “culture positive”.[2]Published methods and results for this laboratory-developed test have been reviewed by CDC. The review raised serious concerns about false-positive results caused by laboratory contamination and the potential for misdiagnosis.[3]CDC recommends that laboratory tests cleared or approved by FDA be used to aid in the routine diagnosis of Lyme disease. A complete searchable list of such tests is available online.[4]When evaluating testing options, providers and their patients might be confused by the distinction between Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certification of laboratories and FDA clearance or approval of specific tests. CLIA certification of a laboratory indicates that the laboratory meets a set of basic quality standards.* It is important to note, however, that the CLIA program does not address the clinical validity of a specific test (i.e., the accuracy with which the test identifies, measures, or predicts the presence or absence of a clinical condition in a patient).† FDA clearance/approval of a test, on the other hand, provides assurance that the test itself has adequate analytical and clinical validation and is safe and effective.§When laboratory testing is indicated, CDC recommends two-tier serologic testing for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Two-tier testing consists of an FDA-cleared enzyme immunoassay (EIA) that, if positive or equivocal, is followed by an FDA-cleared immunoblot test, commonly known as a “Western blot” test. Results are considered positive only when both the EIA and Western blot are positive.[5] Culture and PCR of clinical specimens are recommended only in certain rare circumstances.[6]CDC encourages researchers to work with FDA to develop new or improved tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. As with any diagnostic test, it is critical that new tests for Lyme disease have adequate analytical and clinical validation to avoid misdiagnosis and improper treatment of patients.

* 42 U.S.C. §263a; 42 CFR Part 493.

†Additional information available at http://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/clia/downloads/ldt-and-clia_faqs.pdf.

§21 U.S.C. §§360c, 360e and 21 CFR814.20, 860.7.

Lyme disease: a review of its epidemiology, evaluation, and treatment.

From: “Carl Tuttle”
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2015 7:53:56 PM
Subject: Lyme disease: a review of its epidemiology, evaluation, and treatment.

Psychosomatics. 2014 Sep-Oct; 55(5):421-9. doi: 10.1016/j.psym.2014.02.006. Epub 2014 Apr 19.

Lyme disease: a review of its epidemiology, evaluation, and treatment.

Gerstenblith TA, Stern TA.
Consultation Psychiatry, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA; Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA; Avery D. Weisman Psychiatry Consultation Service, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA. Electronic address: TStern@Partners.org.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25016354

Feb 25, 2015

PSYCHOSOMATICS

The Journal of Consultation and Liaison Psychiatry

James Vrac, Executive Director

Editor-in-Chief: Theodore A. Stern, MD, FAPM,

Dear Executive Director Vrac,

I would like to call attention to the article published in Psychosomatics coauthored by Psychosomatics Editor-in-Chief: Theodore A. Stern, MD, FAPM.

It is difficult to accept that this article was approved through a “pier-review process” as there appears to be a bias viewpoint of Lyme disease with a great deal of missing and or misleading information.

For example,

Misleading information:

#1 “The transmission of the spirochete requires that the tick be attached to the new host for24–48 hours.”

Stricker et al describes three cases in which transmission of Borrelia burgdorferi, appears to have occurred in less than 24 hours.[1] Dr. Willy Burgdorfer (discoverer of the Borrelia burgdorferi spirochete) was quoted during a conference at Bard College in 1999 stating that about 5-10% of ticks that are carrying Lyme disease have a systemic infection and have the disease in their saliva and can transmit it as soon as they bite. He said, “There is no safety window.”

#2 “….erythema migrans rash occurs in more than 80% of individuals with Lyme disease”

The State of Maine Department of Health and Human Services has documented on average 48.25% incidence of rash-related Lyme over the last 4 years (See page 3 of each official report.) [2] [3] [4] [5] Dr. Gensheimer served as an Epidemic Intelligence Service Officer with the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention prior to her assuming her current position in Maine. The 80% number is pure disinformation propagated by the CDC.

#3Selecting which individuals are appropriate for serologic testing is important, as testing helps support or refute the clinical diagnosis, but it can neither establish nor exclude the diagnosis of Lyme disease.” “Current serologic testing assays are unable to distinguish between active and inactive infection.”

So in summary there is no laboratory test to gauge treatment failure or success. The current two-tier FDA approved testing method insures that persistent infection will never be identified. Per the U.S. Food and Drug Administration website [6] there appears to be seven pages of patient complaints regarding faulty/misleading Lyme disease antibody testing and subsequent misdiagnosis. Lyme disease antibody tests landed a sixteen year old Massachusetts boy in a psychiatric ward.[7] The misdiagnosis resulted from faulty/misleading two tier serology as this boy’s Western blot did not meet the five out of ten band IgG criteria for positive results. The physician responsible for the misdiagnosis is regarded as an “expert” in Lyme disease. In addition, this case shows that the “one-size-fits-all” IDSA treatment guideline was a complete failure.

Incidentally, China’s criteria for a positive Western blot diagnosis of Lyme disease were established with only one IgG band and one single IgM band.[8]

#4 Serologic testing is more reliable in later-stage disease.”It is rare to have CSF antibodies without serologic ones, so the absence of serologic antibodies indicates that Lyme disease is not present.”

Seronegativity in Lyme borreliosis; 103 Peer-Reviewed Studies [9]

“If false results are to be feared, it is the false negative result which holds the greatest peril for the patient.”

#5 “…there is no evidence that B. burgdorferi infection persists in humans after a course of antibiotic therapy”

Persistent Lyme infection; 273 Peer-Reviewed Studies [10]

“In 1991 the Lyme disease organism, Borrelia burgdorferi, was grown from the cerebrospinal fluid of my patient Vicki Logan at the Centers for Disease Control in Fort Collins, Colorado despite prior treatment with intravenous antibiotics. Her case made the front page of the New York Times Science Times in August of 1993.” -Kenneth Liegner, MD [11]

Vicki Logan’s CDC Fort Collins Positive CSF Culture Report [12]

Vicki Logan/Poughkeepsie Journal article challenging CDC treatment guidelines [13]

#6 “Multiple patient advocacy groups that have encouraged patients (many of whom had negative results on serologic testing) to think that they have chronic infections have flourished”

Misinterpretation of laboratory results is the main reason why the medical community is dismissive of patients with Lyme disease and their symptoms. Faulty diagnostic tests create confusion, causing physicians to miss the small period in which they can give successful short-term treatment. As a result, many patients have late-stage Lyme disease. Since we only test for antibodies against the infection and not the bacteria itself, we have no way to rule out active, continuing infection.

If the Infectious Diseases Society of America and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention are correct with their single-treatment approach for all stages of Lyme disease and two-tier method of testing, why do we have so much legislation involving Lyme disease? [14]

#7 “Some have even encouraged legislative efforts to subvert evidence-based recommendations and demand long-term antibiotic treatment owing to persistent infection.”

Texas Senator Chris Harris says he was severely affected by the disease, but “got a lucky break.” His doctor, constrained by a disciplinary board that limited antibiotic use for tick-borne illness to 1 month or less, arranged for 17 physicians to take turns writing prescriptions for Sen. Harris’s treatment. “As a Lyme disease survivor,” says Sen Harris, “I know how important the correct treatment can be. This bill is a vital step forward in properly treating those who have this disease.” [15]

_________

Here are some additional studies to consider: (Missing from the Gerstenblith and Stern article)

Congenital Transmission of Lyme: 28 Peer-Reviewed Studies [16]

Case report of persistent Lyme disease from Pulaski County, Virginia [17]

Chronic Borrelia burgdorferi infection: a case report [18]

As the reader reviews the article by Gerstenblith and Stern one might begin to question if it was written as a playbook on how to avoid legal accountability for misdiagnosis and perhaps should have been titled “Willful Ignorance for Beginners” In the tragic case of the Lyme patient who committed suicide, prescribing steroids to a patient with infection further suppressing the immune system, certainly led to the demise of this patient.

In conclusion:

We have been dealing with an antibiotic resistant superbug cleverly concealed to promote vaccine development. A preventive vaccine for Lyme disease would not satisfy the FDA if a chronic persistent infection and seronegative disease exist.[19] Post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome is simply a fabricated medical condition disguising treatment failure.

We need to ask the question, “Why are the pier-reviewed studies, case reports and information I provided missing from the Gerstenblith and Stern article and what was the incentive for promoting the existing dogma? Was there influence (bias) by a colleague at Mass General Hospital inappropriately influencing this article?

Respectfully submitted,

Carl Tuttle,

Hudson, NH

References



[1] Clinical evidence for rapid transmission of Lyme disease following a tickbite

http://www.dmidjournal.com/article/S0732-8893(11)00415-9/abstract

[2] Report to Maine Legislature Lyme Disease February 2009

http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/reports/lymereport.pdf — 2009, 59%

[8] A Study of the Technique of Western Blot for Diagnosis of Lyme Disease caused by Borrelia afzelii in China

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23425802

[9] Seronegativity in Lyme borreliosis: 103 Peer-Reviewed Studies

http://www.lymeinfo.net/medical/LDSeronegativity.pdf

[10] Persistent Lyme infection: 273 Peer-Reviewed Studies

http://home.comcast.net/~runagain/Persistence%20of%20Lyme%20Disease.doc

[12] Vicki Logan’s CDC Fort Collins Positive CSF Culture Report

http://home.comcast.net/~runagain/Logan%20CDC%20Fort%20Collins%20Positive%20CSF%20Culture%20Report.jpg

[14] Letter to the Editor, The Lancet Infectious Diseases Published May 2012

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(12)70054-3/fulltext

[15] Texas legislature passes Lyme bill recognizing long-term antibiotic treatment as option for persistent disease

http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?libid=16308

[16] Congenital Transmission of Lyme: 28 Peer-Reviewed Studies

http://home.comcast.net/~runagain/Congenital%20Transmission%20of%20Lyme.doc

[17] Case report of persistent Lyme disease from Pulaski County, Virginia

http://www.dovepress.com/getfile.php?fileID=18365

[18] Granulomatous hepatitis associated with chronic Borrelia burgdorferi infection: a case report
http://www.labome.org/research/Granulomatous-hepatitis-associated-with-chronic-Borrelia-burgdorferi-infection-a-case-report.html

[19] Petition: Calling for a Congressional investigation of the CDC, IDSA and ALDF

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

Cc: to Elsevier’s senior management team

Ron Mobed, Chief Executive Officer

Adriaan Roosen, Executive Vice President, Operations

Mark Seeley, Senior Vice President and General Counsel

Youngsuk “YS” Chi, Chairman

Legislators:

Sen. Richard Blumenthal

Sen. Terry Gipson

Sen. Kemp Hannon

Sen. John Bonacic

Concerns Regarding a New Culture Method for Borrelia burgdorferi

Concerns Regarding a New Culture Method for Borrelia burgdorferi

Not Approved for the Diagnosis of Lyme Disease

Note: This is a Medscape link and you need to either have an account there or create one to view the linked page.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/823933?src=wnl_edit_tpal&uac=185407FK
Christina Nelson, MD, Sally Hojvat, PhD, Barbara Johnson, PhD, Jeannine Petersen, PhD, Marty Schriefer, PhD, C. Ben Beard, PhD, Lyle Petersen, MD, Paul Mead, MD

Disclosures

Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. 2014;63(15):333
In 2005, CDC and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a warning regarding the use of Lyme disease tests whose accuracy and clinical usefulness have not been adequately established.[1] Often these are laboratory-developed tests (also known as “home brew” tests) that are manufactured and used within a single laboratory and have not been cleared or approved by FDA. Recently, CDC has received inquiries regarding a laboratory-developed test that uses a novel culture method to identify Borrelia burgdorferi, the spirochete that causes Lyme disease. Patient specimens reportedly are incubated using a two-step pre-enrichment process, followed by immunostaining with or without polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis. Specimens that test positive by immunostaining or PCR are deemed “culture positive”.[2]Published methods and results for this laboratory-developed test have been reviewed by CDC. The review raised serious concerns about false-positive results caused by laboratory contamination and the potential for misdiagnosis.[3]CDC recommends that laboratory tests cleared or approved by FDA be used to aid in the routine diagnosis of Lyme disease. A complete searchable list of such tests is available online.[4]When evaluating testing options, providers and their patients might be confused by the distinction between Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA) certification of laboratories and FDA clearance or approval of specific tests. CLIA certification of a laboratory indicates that the laboratory meets a set of basic quality standards.* It is important to note, however, that the CLIA program does not address the clinical validity of a specific test (i.e., the accuracy with which the test identifies, measures, or predicts the presence or absence of a clinical condition in a patient).† FDA clearance/approval of a test, on the other hand, provides assurance that the test itself has adequate analytical and clinical validation and is safe and effective.§When laboratory testing is indicated, CDC recommends two-tier serologic testing for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. Two-tier testing consists of an FDA-cleared enzyme immunoassay (EIA) that, if positive or equivocal, is followed by an FDA-cleared immunoblot test, commonly known as a “Western blot” test. Results are considered positive only when both the EIA and Western blot are positive.[5] Culture and PCR of clinical specimens are recommended only in certain rare circumstances.[6]CDC encourages researchers to work with FDA to develop new or improved tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease. As with any diagnostic test, it is critical that new tests for Lyme disease have adequate analytical and clinical validation to avoid misdiagnosis and improper treatment of patients.
* 42 U.S.C. §263a; 42 CFR Part 493.

†Additional information available at http://www.cms.gov/regulations-and-guidance/legislation/clia/downloads/ldt-and-clia_faqs.pdf.

§21 U.S.C. §§360c, 360e and 21 CFR814.20, 860.7.

Lyme Disease DNA Testing

Jan 17, 2014

Clinical Infectious Diseases

Editor-in-Chief, Sherwood L. Gorbach, M.D

Dear Dr Gorbach,

The Molecular Diagnostics Department of Milford Medical Laboratory recently announced a DNA Sequencing-based diagnostic test for Borrelia burgdorferi and Borrelia miyamotoi.

BREAKING NEWS: Jan. 15, 2014 – BusinessWire Press Release

Lyme Disease DNA Testing

http://www.dnalymetest.com/faq.html

Statement from Milford Medical Laboratory:

“……spirochetes will not stay in the blood of the patient for long because they prefer to live in the deep tissues, such as the joints, the heart and the nervous system. The window of opportunity to find the spirochetes in the blood is narrow….”

In reference to Dr Alan Steere’s study recently published in Clinical Infectious Diseases I would like to point out the following statements from his study:

“….all post-treatment culture results were negative…”

“….suggesting that spirochetal eradication had occurred with treatment in all patients.”

So is Dr Alan Steere not aware that the “spirochetes will not stay in the blood of the patient for long” or has he rushed to conclusion here to support his renowned bias against persistent infection as I highlighted in my letter to the editor?

I would like to point out a recent article found in Forbes:

Medicine Or Mass Murder? Guideline Based on Discredited Research May Have Caused 800,000 Deaths In Europe Over The Last 5 Years

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larryhusten/2014/01/15/medicine-or-mass-murder-guideline-based-on-discredited-research-may-have-caused-800000-deaths-in-europe-over-the-last-5-years/

The article focuses on the damage caused by the disgraced Dutch cardiovascular researcher Don Poldermans who was fired for scientific misconduct. A follow-up article will focus on the institutional leaders who provided uncritical support as well as the role of journal editors in this case.

A comment following the article struck a chord with me:

“There is, it has now become clear, a general lack of concern and response to evidence of scientific fraud and misconduct. Journal editors, deans, department chairs, and others seem more concerned with protecting the reputation of their respective institutions than aggressively upholding the integrity of science and research.”

Dr Gorbach…… per your reply to me, one of the reasons you decided not to publish my letter to the editor was as follows: “it represents a personal, not a scientific, attack on Dr. Steere…” It would appear that reputation overrides integrity.

Spinning the data to support one’s bias jeopardizes the integrity of the Journal in which the research is published. Dr Alan Steere holds steadfast to the idea that he can fool all of the people all of the time with authorization to do so.

Sincerely,

Carl Tuttle

Hudson, NH 03051

A Systematic Review of Borrelia burgdorferi Morphologic Variants Does Not Support a Role in Chronic Lyme Disease

From: “Carl Tuttle” <runagain@comcast.net>
To: “Clinical Infectious Diseases” <cid@tufts.edu>
Cc: cid3@tufts.edu, CID-editor@tufts.edu, “sherwood gorbach” <sherwood.gorbach@tufts.edu>, “michael barza” <michael.barza@tufts.edu>, scosgro1@jhmi.edu, asteere@partners.org, kstrle@partners.org,ethics@harvard.edu,

“David Linsky” <David.Linsky@mahouse.gov>, “Dick Blumenthal” <Dick_Blumenthal@blumenthal.senate.gov>

To: “Clinical Infectious Diseases” <cid@tufts.edu>

Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2013 11:26:22 PM

Subject: Re: CID MS 73416

Dear Dr Gorbach,

Here is yet another example of junk science published in Clinical Infectious Diseases aimed at denying the existence of persistent infection.

A Systematic Review of Borrelia burgdorferi Morphologic Variants Does Not Support a Role in Chronic Lyme Disease

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2013/12/12/cid.cit810.abstract

Conclusion from the “Three Amigos” abstract: (Lantos, Auwaerter and Wormser)

Conclusions.”In the context of the broader medical literature it is not currently possible to ascribe a pathogenic role to morphologic variants of  B. burgdorferi in either typical manifestations of Lyme disease or in other chronic disease states that are often labeled chronic Lyme disease. There is no clinical literature to justify specific treatment of B. burgdorferi morphologic variants.”

Studies on the Cystic Form of Borrelia burgdorferi Mechanisms of Persistence

http://www.samento.com.ec/sciencelib/4lyme/studiesoncyst.pdf

Effects of Penicillin, Ceftriaxone, and Doxycycline on Morphology of Borrelia burgdorferi

Date of Publication: May, 1995

Source: Antimicrobial Agents & Chemotherapy, 39(5):1127-33

Authors: Kersten A; Poitschek C; Rauch S; Aberer E.

Institution: Department of Dermatology, University of Vienna, AustriaAbstract

Antibiotic therapy with penicillin, doxycycline, and ceftriaxone has proven to be effective for the treatment of Lyme borreliosis. In some patients, however, it was noticed that borreliae can survival in the tissues in spite of seemingly adequate therapy. For a better understanding of this phenomenon, we investigated the different modes of degeneration of Borrelia burgdorferi suspensions during a 96-h exposure to various antibiotics. By dark-field microscopy and ultrastructural investigations,increasing blebbing and the gradual formation of granular and cystic structures could be followed during the exposure time. Although antibiotic concentrations at the MIC at which 90% of organisms are inhibited after 72 h were 80% or even greater, motile organisms were still present after incubation with penicillin and doxycycline but not after incubation with ceftriaxone. By transmission electron microscopy, intact spirochetal parts, mostly situated in cysts, were seen up to 96 h after exposure with all three antibiotics tested. According to experiences from studies with other spirochetes it is suggested that encysted borreliae, granules, and the remaining blebs might be responsible for the ongoing antigenic stimulus leading to complaints of chronic Lyme borreliosis.

——————————————————

Quotation From The Full-Text Article

“Morphologically intact borrelia parts seen after 4 days of incubation with antibiotics, however, may also persist in humans during antibiotic treatment. …granules and encysted

B. burgdorferi should be investigated further in view of their long-term persistence in infected tissues and their contribution to the pathogenesis of Lyme borreliosis.” (p.1132)

Carl Tuttle

Website: New Hampshire Lyme Misdiagnosis

 

Lyle Petersen’s letter addressed to Carl Tuttle on Feb 15, 2012

From Lyle Petersen’s letter addressed to Carl Tuttle on Feb 15, 2012:

“We welcome the opportunity to respond to a statement in one of your letters, which repeats a common misrepresentation of the facts regarding CDC’s work in development of Lyme disease diagnostics. In your letter you state, “Those of us who have been harmed by the two tier testing algorithm find it a conflict of interest when the Director of the CDC’ strongly recommends’ only FDA-approved antibody tests for the diagnosis of Lyme disease especially when employees of the CDC (Barbara Johnson) hold patent interests in these faulty tests.” Your allegation that CDC program staff, including Dr. Barbara Johnson, hold patents on Lyme diagnostics and/or have financial conflicts of interest is false”

“More than a decade ago, Dr. Johnson was listed as an inventor on two patent applications and foreign filings related to specific antigens of Borrelia burgdorferi. These applications were made in accordance with government policy to protect the investment of taxpayers in government directed research. [??? Emphasis added]

Subsequent work indicated that these antigens were not as diagnostically useful as alternatives discovered by others, such as the C6 peptide. Consequently, both patent applications and their associated foreign filings were abandoned in February, 1997 and November, 2003. Dr. Johnson never received any payments related to these applications, and she does not hold patents that could generate such payments. She is not an inventor of the C6 peptide assay, as alleged by some, and receives no royalties from this invention. In fact, no CDC employees have ever received payments, royalties, or consulting fees for any activity related to commercial tests or vaccines for Lyme disease.”

The entire letter is posted here: (free to distribute)

http://home.comcast.net/~runagain/Director Lyle Peterson letter.pdf

Carl Tuttle follow-up letter to Mary Beth in response to Lyle Petersen’s “opinion” piece to the Poughkeepsie Journal’s interest in reporting on Lyme disease.

Valley-View-Long-term-antibiotics-not-warranted

Poughkeepsie Journal

85 Civic Center Plaza

Poughkeepsie, NY 12601

Attn: Mary Beth Pfeiffer

Dear Mary Beth,

Thank you for your continued efforts in covering the Lyme disease epidemic. In reference to the recent reply from the CDC’s Lyle R. Petersen I would like to point out that once again (as always) there is an emphasis on the acute stage of the disease.

I fall under the category of patients who had a “prolonged exposure to the organism prior to the initial diagnosis and antibiotic treatment of Lyme disease” as it took twelve years to obtain a diagnosis. Late stage Lyme disease does not respond well to antibiotics and it is this stage of the disease where “elements of academic medicine, elements of government and virtually the entire insurance industry have colluded to deny a disease.”

It is blatantly obvious that individuals who control public health policy for Lyme disease are either incredibly incompetent or committed to precisely what has been orchestrated to deny the late stage Lyme epidemic seen all across this nation.

Case in point: New York Medical College’s Lyme diagnostic center. (Gary Wormser’s location and co-author of the insurance friendly IDSA treatment guidelines) Below is a copy of their home page. Apparently Late Stage Lyme doesn’t exist as it is not listed on their website, additional evidence of the ongoing/blatant denial of the late manifestation of the Lyme disease epidemic.

Lyme Disease Diagnostic Center at New York Medical College

http://www.nymc.edu/LDDC/index.html

Background and Mission Statement: Established in 1989, the Lyme Disease Diagnostic Center is staffed by experienced physicians and nurses with special expertise in the diagnosis and treatment of persons 18 years and older with: – Tick bites – Early/Acute Lyme disease – Anaplasmosis (Ehrlichiosis) – Babesiosis ——————————————————- Since we only test for antibodies against the infection and not the bacteria itself, we have no way to rule out active, continuing infection (until now) which has been ideal for the “chronic Lyme” denialist camp headed up by Alan Steere and colleagues.

His nearly forty year old “theory” (Infection-induced autoimmunity) has yet to be substantiated but plays a large role in the treatment and insurance reimbursement denial of countless patients across the country. The denial of this epidemic and refusal to reimburse for treating persistent infection has caused untold pain and suffering not only in New Hampshire but across the nation.

Johns Hopkins published a study that followed patients who were treated from an acute Lyme disease stage but went on to develop debilitating symptoms after the standard IDSA treatment protocol. 35% of patients met the definition of post-Lyme syndrome 6 months after treatment and as many as 45% with one major symptom.

I have suggested to Dr Aucott he test these patients using Advanced Laboratory Services’ Borellia Culture test.

We now have proof that chronic Lyme exists through Advanced Laboratory Services’s Borrellia culture test as the laboratory is reporting positive cultures in 80% of symptomatic post treatment Lyme patient specimens so why is the CDC in no rush whatsoever to embrace this technology? Because the true epidemic and deceitful handling of late stage Lyme disease will finally be exposed!

Sincerely, Carl Tuttle