CDC denies to Downplay Lyme EpidemicWritten by Jenna Luche-Thayer, founder of Global Network on Institutional Discrimination,
Here is a basic summary, but please read the entire article for yourself and print out the pdf for your physician. We need to share this far and wide as tick borne illness is an epidemic. It’s going to take all of us working together to change the propaganda put out by the cabal.
*The CDC changes its tune about Lyme after 1991. Before 1991 they admitted it was complex, multi-symptom, highly individual, that both oral and IV antibiotics may be useful, it’s persistent, some folks never get the rash, it’s hard to diagnose, and it can cause permanent damage to joints and nervous system. After 1991 Lyme was miraculously no longer persistent – despite 700 peer reviewed articles saying otherwise. With the stroke of the pen they minimized the range and severity of symptoms. (Please refer to Thayer’s pdf for the lengthy bibliography)
*The 1990 Lyme Disease Case Definition for Public Health Surveillance Guide states emphatically that it is for surveillance purposes only and should not be used as sole criterial for diagnosis, determining standard of care for patients, setting guidelines for quality assurance, providing standards for reimbursement, or initiating public health actions.
*The 1990 case definition of LD randomly picks the initial skin lesion is the best clinical marker, but the 1991 Symptoms and signs of LD says that some folks never get the rash, that some have arthritis type symptoms while others have nervous system problems. Thayer states that a review of studies between 1981-1991 described LD as a systemic disease with a plethora of steadily increasing symptoms and that no consensus or clinical marker was reached.
*Unlike other diseases, the Lyme Case Definition lies dead in the water for nearly three decades, whereas other diseases’ case definitions are continually revised to include new science. Thayer points out that new strains of borrelia are continually being discovered but are not being picked up by the CDC’s two-tiered testing, not to mention that thousands of patients with clear symptoms of LD continue to test negative.
*Lack of new data in Case Definition regarding vectors. Thayer shows that 95% of data from an important 2001 study on vectors was excluded.
*References to support the LD Case Definitions are from a handful of authors who cite each other. For more on the cabal, please read:
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com ... d-ol-boys/https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com ... e-science/*Other tick borne illnesses’ case definitions have been updated with new science, but not Lyme (borrelia).
For both Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever (RMSF) and Q Fever, doctors are told to consider infection even if a person cannot prove tick attachment, that lack of specific symptoms does not imply it’s benign, that early treatment with antibiotics based on suspicion will reduce the chance of severe illness and death, and to consider a similar illness in those closest to the patient, including family pets.
For Lyme……crickets.
The CDC even states that people who appear to have Lyme may not have it, so don’t even bother testing them. Thayer points out the CDC’s “wait and see” approach regarding LD that pathologist Sin Lee accuses Steer, Mead, and colleagues of taking even though delayed treatment for LD can lead to severe disease and fatality.
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com ... d-ol-boys/Regarding endocarditis, which both Lyme and Q-Fever can cause, they recommend early diagnosis and extended antibiotics for Q fever whereas, for Lyme endocarditis, they recommend a short course of antibiotics or no antibiotics at all should it occur after initial antibiotic treatment for Lyme. Both can be fatal.
*LD Surveillance Criteria is abominable. Hardly anyone meets the CDC’s myopic view of LD.
*CDC creates syndrome rather than change Lyme Guidelines. This is the mother load. According to the CDC, patients who have persisting symptoms despite treatment have “Post Lyme Treatment Syndrome” (PLTS) and really have a psychiatric condition that would be best served with steroids, antidepressants, and painkillers, despite the fact these things will not deal with a persistent active infection and could make matters infinitely worse.
Thayer then gives a valuable history lesson reminder on AIDS and how many feel the CDC scapegoated homosexuals, drug users, Haitians, and hemophiliacs, (aka, the 4-H club). This narrow definition kept many with AIDS from being diagnosed and treated. This finally changed due to public outcry and now the definition includes more than 60 infections.
She believes the CDC’s treatment of the Lyme epidemic is quite similar and that their policy is discriminating, stigmatizing, and scapegoating patients. This is seen best by a bevy of NIH studies misusing “Medically Unexplained Symptoms,” (MUS) to describe those with persisting symptoms. MUS is a psychiatric disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders category of Somatic Symptom Disorder. In other words, they think we are self-absorbed and preoccupied with symptoms. Anyone with MSIDS knows – you can’t make this stuff up!
Thayer points out that none of the NIH articles include original research or advance knowledge, yet Yale and the University of Pennsylvania have obtained nearly twelve million in NIH grants to discredit patients and those helping them, which ultimately undermines patients’ access to care and insurance coverage, sabotages their access with scientific, medical, and governmental communities, and discredits and marginalizes patients, advocates, and the physicians who dare to treat them.
