Tag Archives: M.D.

Evidence for strain-specific immunity in patients treated for early Lyme disease

From: “Carl Tuttle” <runagain@comcast.net>

To: “Ferric Fang” <fcfang@u.washington.edu>

Cc: “Laurie Webby” <lwebby@asmusa.org>, “Zehava Robbins” <zrobbins@asmusa.org>, “Jeffery F. Miller” <jfmiller@ucla.edu>, “Barbara Goldman” <bgoldman@asmusa.org>, “Thomas Shenk” <tshenk@princeton.edu>, “Jessica Kanotz” <jkanotz@asmusa.org>, “Dick Blumenthal” <Dick_Blumenthal@blumenthal.senate.gov>, dbrisson@sas.upenn.edu, ckhatchikian@sas.upenn.edu
Sent: Friday, January 31, 2014 4:05:02 PM

Subject: Re: Evidence for strain-specific immunity in patients treated for early Lyme disease

Ferric C. Fang, M.D.
Editor in Chief, Infection and Immunity

Dear Prof. Fang,

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my letter to the editor. When writing the letter I did not have the full text (only the abstract) which does not include any conflict of interest statement. I have seen conflict of interest statements integrated in abstracts from other journals so the reader does not have to purchase the full PDF before identifying potential conflicts.

I would like to call attention to the following article in Forbes Magazine highlighting how medical guidelines based on questionable science caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of patients:

Medicine Or Mass Murder? Guideline Based on Discredited Research May Have Caused 800,000 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.

Author Dr Gary Wormser of the manuscript; Evidence for strain-specific immunity in patients treated for early Lyme disease is also the lead author of the controversial one-size-fits-all Lyme Treatment Guideline which is responsible for perhaps much greater harm and disability than what was identified in the Don Poldermans case.
Rest assured any study authored by Wormser referencing a “six year immunity cycle” will be incorporated in a future vaccine treatment guideline with the potential to harm millions. The so called “mathematical model” showing “evidence for strain-specific immunity” is just plan and simple junk science with absolutely no proof whatsoever. Incorporating such questionable science in a vaccine distribution model has the potential for catastrophic results.

Your personal overview of this study; “…conflicting results occur all the time in science and provide fruitful ground for further research” is far too apathetic for what is at stake here. Once a study is published there could be a lengthy delay to have the article removed as was experienced in the Poldermans example.

It remains questionable that a Lyme disease vaccine is practical for an infection that produces a lack of immunological memory (unlike Measles, Mumps etc.) so fabricating a six year strain-specific immunity makes perfect sense for the marketing/acceptance of such vaccine.

The paper by Elsner et al found no immunological memory to Borrelia in the mice model but to my knowledge those researchers are not looking to develop a vaccine.

Sincerely,

Carl Tuttle
Hudson, NH 03051

Spinning the data to support vaccine development

From: “Carl Tuttle” <runagain@comcast.net>

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

Cc: CID-editor@tufts.edu, “sherwood gorbach” <sherwood.gorbach@tufts.edu>, “michael barza” <michael.barza@tufts.edu>, scosgro1@jhmi.edu, ethics@harvard.edu, “David Linsky” <David.Linsky@mahouse.gov>, “Dick Blumenthal” <Dick_Blumenthal@blumenthal.senate.gov>

Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 3:14:49 PM

Subject: Re: CID MS 73416

Clinical Infectious Diseases

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

Dr Gorbach,

In the ongoing effort to preserve the narrow/restrictive case definition of Lyme disease it has become noticeably evident that Clinical Infectious Diseases has been utilized as a springboard for the the disinformation/bias campaign allowed to progress with unabated intensity.As stated in a previous email Dec 13th…….

“It has become blatantly obvious that the CDC will go to great lengths to insure that Lyme disease remains within its narrow definition in order to fit the vaccine model. Chronic Lyme does not fit any vaccine model.”

Clinical Infectious Diseases article:

The Need for a New Lyme Disease Vaccine

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/suppl_3/NP.1.full

Volume 52 suppl 3 February 1, 2011 doi: 10.1093/cid/ciq124

Guest Editors: Stanley A. Plotkin, MD

Gary P. Wormser, MD

This supplement is sponsored by Baxter Laboratories, the Centers for Disease Control, Fort Collins, CO, and Stanley Plotkin.

There is no abstract attached to this CID link?? Why?

Wormser, Plotkin, the CDC and Baxter laboratories all participating in the denial of the late stage Lyme epidemic; a result of a vaccine initiative duped as the cure-all to this world wide epidemic which continues to spread across America and other countries.

While we are on the subject of denialism here are a few references for your review:

Congenital Transmission of Lyme: 28 Peer-Reviewed Studies

Persistent Lyme infection: 273 Peer-Reviewed Studies

Seronegativity in Lyme borreliosis: 103 Peer-Reviewed Studies

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

Quote posted to the petition site:

“In the fullness of time, the mainstream handling of chronic Lyme disease will be viewed as one of the most shameful episodes in the history of medicine because elements of academic medicine, elements of government and virtually the entire insurance industry have colluded to deny a disease.”

In the not to distant future the truth will be revealed when those responsible are subpoenaed to testify under oath. In the meantime studies (junk science) published in CID by these individuals continue to expose their efforts of spinning the data to support the group’s initiative: vaccine development.

Sincerely,

Carl Tuttle