Re: Corruption 401- CDC's staff's patents with SmithKline in Europe

Thank you.

I will tell you why it is corrupt, because Joel-the-Jerk-Myself-Off and
Talk-to-my-Sock-Puppets "lawyer" doesn't understand the meaning of the
patents- which he obviously did not read.

The patents state that the CDC staff are aware of different diseases
expressions based on genetic haplotype or differences in inate
immunity. What do you suppose that could mean, as regards their
knowledge of the validity of theirs, the current CDC testing standard
for Lyme disease?

CDC now says Lyme is a knee-only disease- an arthritis in a knee- which
is, for some people, a hypersenstivity reaction and is genetically
determined, as I demonstrate with my little panda bear in the videos I
took the time to make, free, for public consumption (compare what Joel
and his multiple personalities do with their time).

CDC previously had as their criteria for chronic Lyme, or the
persistence of the infection, that Lyme is to be determined by the
demonstration of changing and expanding IgM and IgG antibodies, which,
if you read it, is exactly what I told the FDA nearly 6 years ago.

If you want to confirm that the CDC had a "Relapsing Fever" diagnostic
profile requirement where serial Western Blots to look for new IgM as
their previous standard, and *was* the standard before these CDC
"officers" applied for patents in Europe with SmithKline - which is
clearly a conflict of interest, use my website. The CDC manual's page
is scanned in, and was published in 1990.

What *was* the CDC standard for the diagnosis of Lyme disease, was to
look for new IgM, which would mean persisting infection.

That is not now the standard. Now the standard is to throw out almost
all IgM bands, and companies involved in the RICO, namely Imugen, say
to patients or write on their report forms, that IgG antibodies mean
nothing and that the person has a non-treatable case of Lyme because
IgG are old antibodies.

We're not allowed to look for new IgM antibodies, and if you have the
old kind, IgG, you still cannot be treated, they say. As if that would
make sense to anyone other than people with MDs after their names -
those whose inate arrogance is a bigger problem to American citizens
than American citizens' own inate immunity.

All of this means CDC knows the testing for Lyme is bogus, and the fact
that they have patent rights - and patents which clearly state that the
current CDC testing for Lyme is fraudulent - means no one can have any
treatment for Lyme, but we CAN have a possible vaccine, from which the
CDC staff members will profit personally.

No one can have a treatable case of Lyme disease.
But via the same antibodies, or vaccine candidates, THOSE are valid-
valid to the CDC staffs' bank accounts.

This is exactly what happened with LYMErix.

If the CDC admits there are genetic difference in antibody profile
based on the same antigens, they know the testing for Lyme is
fraudulent. I hope that is clear.

What gave CDC the right to determine that we are not entitled to
treatment for a disease?

The US RICO laws state that individual employees of a government agency
like the CDC can be prosecuted under these RICO laws. I checked it out
first, before I filed the RICO complaint.

Unfortunately, all we have is scumbags and thugs- USDOJ dot guv FOOLS -
for BigBusiness "working" in the Corrupticut US Attorney's office.
The O'Connors are neighbors with the Rowlands, who are Republicans, and
who *all* are about helping the other racketeers of insider defense-,
and biodefense information-, the local Bush-Walker-Weld Bankers, their
CFR friends (Mortimer Zuckerman), the Yale Endowment Fund, and the
other psychopaths @ BigBusiness dot guv (SmithKline and Kaiser, AIPAC,
New York Biotech and the Israeli-US Biotech Alliance).

What was once the frightening monster of the Military-Industrial
Complex, has now become the Biotech AND Military-Industrial Complex,
while the reverse evolved in the AMA and related. Doctors have become
stupider, and rely on the BigPharma Lunches for food and "education"
about drugs. Doctors are also TRAINED by Big Insurance @ New York
Medical College dot Kaiser dot guv.

http://www.actionlyme.org/LYME_CORRUPTICUT.htm

Under all of this biotech corruption, the fulcrum is OspA. What OspA
means, is that the US "government" (we all know to use the term loosely
now, especially due to the lack of *representative* government), has
decided to ignore all other borrelioses, which are all over the America
and are all RELAPSING FEVER BORRELIAE, and they have decided you can
only have "Lyme Disease"- which is defined by OspA- if you have
arthritis in a knee that is CAUSED by OspA, but if you have that
antibody, you don't have Lyme disease.

It has been 12 years since the CDC adopted this ridiculous standard
which was meant to set up the RICO where Yale gets all the national
blood for tick borne diseases testing as well as all the vaccine
royalties, and it has been almost 6 years since I exposed this crime to
the FDA, but nothing has been done about it except ***continued
harassment*** of Lyme victims and their treaters, by none other than
the guy who thought up this ridiculous vaccine for a disease which, by
its RELAPSING nature, cannot be prevented by a vaccine:
http://www.actionlyme.org/McSweegan.htm

As well as the likes of Joel-Jerk-myself-off
and-talk-to-my-sock-puppets-Shmukler.

So, now what is the problem? Borreliosis. Borreliosis is the disease
Relapsing Fever always was, and is described here by Lenny Sigal,
opposite the page where he states that Borreliosis is also caused by
self-poisoning and the poisoning of our children:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MUNCHAUSENS.htm

It is a very serious disease, for which we need a placebo vaccine to
keep us from poisoning our children.

Brought to you by Planet CDC.

Kathleen
Kathleen wrote:
Thank you.

I will tell you why it is corrupt, because Joel-the-Jerk-Myself-Off and
Talk-to-my-Sock-Puppets "lawyer" doesn't understand the meaning of the
patents- which he obviously did not read.

The patents state that the CDC staff are aware of different diseases
expressions based on genetic haplotype or differences in inate
immunity. What do you suppose that could mean, as regards their
knowledge of the validity of theirs, the current CDC testing standard
for Lyme disease?

CDC now says Lyme is a knee-only disease- an arthritis in a knee- which
is, for some people, a hypersenstivity reaction and is genetically
determined, as I demonstrate with my little panda bear in the videos I
took the time to make, free, for public consumption (compare what Joel
and his multiple personalities do with their time).

CDC previously had as their criteria for chronic Lyme, or the
persistence of the infection, that Lyme is to be determined by the
demonstration of changing and expanding IgM and IgG antibodies, which,
if you read it, is exactly what I told the FDA nearly 6 years ago.

If you want to confirm that the CDC had a "Relapsing Fever" diagnostic
profile requirement where serial Western Blots to look for new IgM as
their previous standard, and *was* the standard before these CDC
"officers" applied for patents in Europe with SmithKline - which is
clearly a conflict of interest, use my website. The CDC manual's page
is scanned in, and was published in 1990.

What *was* the CDC standard for the diagnosis of Lyme disease, was to
look for new IgM, which would mean persisting infection.

That is not now the standard. Now the standard is to throw out almost
all IgM bands, and companies involved in the RICO, namely Imugen, say
to patients or write on their report forms, that IgG antibodies mean
nothing and that the person has a non-treatable case of Lyme because
IgG are old antibodies.

We're not allowed to look for new IgM antibodies, and if you have the
old kind, IgG, you still cannot be treated, they say. As if that would
make sense to anyone other than people with MDs after their names -
those whose inate arrogance is a bigger problem to American citizens
than American citizens' own inate immunity.

All of this means CDC knows the testing for Lyme is bogus, and the fact
that they have patent rights - and patents which clearly state that the
current CDC testing for Lyme is fraudulent - means no one can have any
treatment for Lyme, but we CAN have a possible vaccine, from which the
CDC staff members will profit personally.

No one can have a treatable case of Lyme disease.
But via the same antibodies, or vaccine candidates, THOSE are valid-
valid to the CDC staffs' bank accounts.

This is exactly what happened with LYMErix.

If the CDC admits there are genetic difference in antibody profile
based on the same antigens, they know the testing for Lyme is
fraudulent. I hope that is clear.


What gave CDC the right to determine that we are not entitled to
treatment for a disease?

The US RICO laws state that individual employees of a government agency
like the CDC can be prosecuted under these RICO laws. I checked it out
first, before I filed the RICO complaint.

Unfortunately, all we have is scumbags and thugs- USDOJ dot guv FOOLS -
for BigBusiness "working" in the Corrupticut US Attorney's office.
The O'Connors are neighbors with the Rowlands, who are Republicans, and
who *all* are about helping the other racketeers of insider defense-,
and biodefense information-, the local Bush-Walker-Weld Bankers, their
CFR friends (Mortimer Zuckerman), the Yale Endowment Fund, and the
other psychopaths @ BigBusiness dot guv (SmithKline and Kaiser, AIPAC,
New York Biotech and the Israeli-US Biotech Alliance).

What was once the frightening monster of the Military-Industrial
Complex, has now become the Biotech AND Military-Industrial Complex,
while the reverse evolved in the AMA and related. Doctors have become
stupider, and rely on the BigPharma Lunches for food and "education"
about drugs. Doctors are also TRAINED by Big Insurance @ New York
Medical College dot Kaiser dot guv.

http://www.actionlyme.org/LYME_CORRUPTICUT.htm

Under all of this biotech corruption, the fulcrum is OspA. What OspA
means, is that the US "government" (we all know to use the term loosely
now, especially due to the lack of *representative* government), has
decided to ignore all other borrelioses, which are all over the America
and are all RELAPSING FEVER BORRELIAE, and they have decided you can
only have "Lyme Disease"- which is defined by OspA- if you have
arthritis in a knee that is CAUSED by OspA, but if you have that
antibody, you don't have Lyme disease.

It has been 12 years since the CDC adopted this ridiculous standard
which was meant to set up the RICO where Yale gets all the national
blood for tick borne diseases testing as well as all the vaccine
royalties, and it has been almost 6 years since I exposed this crime to
the FDA, but nothing has been done about it except ***continued
harassment*** of Lyme victims and their treaters, by none other than
the guy who thought up this ridiculous vaccine for a disease which, by
its RELAPSING nature, cannot be prevented by a vaccine:
http://www.actionlyme.org/McSweegan.htm

As well as the likes of Joel-Jerk-myself-off
and-talk-to-my-sock-puppets-Shmukler.


So, now what is the problem? Borreliosis. Borreliosis is the disease
Relapsing Fever always was, and is described here by Lenny Sigal,
opposite the page where he states that Borreliosis is also caused by
self-poisoning and the poisoning of our children:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MUNCHAUSENS.htm

It is a very serious disease, for which we need a placebo vaccine to
keep us from poisoning our children.

Brought to you by Planet CDC.


Kathleen



Tempo wrote:
In article <1157430313.852129.72020@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"the 3rd Man" <derdrittemann2003@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Tempo wrote:

I don't think she should necessarily feel compelled to answer your
question.

I do. Anyone who accuses others of wrongdoing should provide enough
specifics so that people can not only understand what is being charged,
but also so that people can form some sort of evaluative judgment about
the merits of the charges and the competency and varacity of the person
making the charges. You can't just point wagging fingers at people.

I find it interesting that you label Kathleen as "kind of a bag lady of the
Internet," you repeatedly proclaim that she is a loon, and you urge other
posters to ignore her posts--yet you doggedly pursue her about her CDC (and
some other) posts.

Your actions reek of hypocrisy.

The word "corruption" has practically become a hackneyed term; it is
sometimes used carelessly. In this particular instance, I think you are
overreacting to Kathleen's use of the word.

As I stated in my previous post, her use of the word "corruption" is not
inappropriate in the context of some of Merriam Webster's definitions.


And, just as a matter of principle, the person with the
affirmative...the person making the charges, carries the burden of
proof and must prove what she says is true.

Maybe in your legal world, but not necessarily on Usenet, and particularly
not in this swamp.

She is not, IMO, under any obligation to prove that the CDC or its
employees are corrupt as per either your, or an official, legal definition
of the word.


If someone charged you with "corruption" wouldn't you demand to know
what the person meant by that? Wouldn't you insist on the specifics?

Probably not, if a person made the allegation in this newsgroup.


This is supposedly fundamental to the American system of justice...and
"fairness".

Again, we're in the milieu of sci.med.diseases.lyme, not in the American
system of justice.

You have an overt tendency to see the world through a legal lens, which is
understandable given your ostensible background as a lawyer. That does
not, however, necessitate that others must view the world through the same
lens.


Her complete failure to even address the question, however, is what is
disturbing, because it tends to show that she is aware that she lacks
any support for her claims.

Not necessarily. Maybe she just doesn't want to join another one of your
online exercises of legal onanism.


I didn't avoid responding to it...I have done so repeatedly.

You did not respond to the specific charge by poster "Elena Cook" on 8/29
that you are a "paid Steere camp plant." I'll take you at your word that
you have responded to her about that allegation on previous occasions.


Although I prefer the phrase "conflicts of interest," I don't have a
problem with Kathleen's use of the word "corruption." Check out the
definition of the word from Merriam Webster (below).

I do. Sorry, but we are talking about legal concepts. A dictionary only
provides ordinary conversational usage.

No. YOU are talking about legal concepts.

Most people who read this board are, I believe, interested in ordinary
usage, not legal definitions. Again, Kathleen is not under any obligation
to engage you about her use of the word "corruption" within a legal
context, IMO.

As I stated earlier, her use of the word is not inconsistent with some of
Merriam Webster's definitions.


In the case of a vaccine against a very nasty disease...the development
of an effective vaccine would be a GOOD thing, right?

It *could* be a good thing, but it would depend on the circumstances. One
could theoretically have an "effective" vaccine with severe side effects
for some elements of the treatment population. Does this ring any bells?


NOW...IF, however, the incentive to profit...for themselves or
others...encouraged decisions that were NOT in the public
interest...that casued corners to be cut and a dangerous product
released...then you MIGHT have an issue.

That is what has been alleged by some people regarding LYMErix and some
other vaccines. Refer to the following articles, which have previously
been posted in this group:

http://tinyurl.com/h3zzr
http://www.whale.to/m/lymerix8.html


But you would have to PROVE that one caused the other...and that is
difficult. Proving that the financial incentive was what caused certain
things to happen could be extremely difficult to prove...not
impossible...but difficult, especially in a situation like this.

I agree that proving that financial incentive caused certain things to
happen could be difficult, but a court of law is not the only court that
matters. The court of public opinion counts too, of course, with respect
to a product's demand as a function of its effectiveness, safety, price,
and other factors. Talk to executives at GlaxoSmithKline if you don't
believe me.


So, what you really have is an APPEARANCE of a POSSIBLE conflict...that
would require further investigation before you could say one way or
another whether there was even a possibility of an actual conflict.

Also...I believe that there are review boards (supposedly independent)
that do "clear" the conflicts of participants on things like this.

Further investigation into the issue could be a good thing. Some people--
including some influential members of Congress--believe that there has been
much more than an appearance of a possible conflict with respect to LYMErix
and some other vaccines.

"Independent" or quasi-independent review boards are okay in theory, but
they have not consistently worked in practice, IMO. Indeed, some people
view them as abject failures.


Government is increasingly complex and sometimes associations are
formed between private concerns and governmental entities to further
the public interest. Obviously it would be preferrbale if the CDC were
able to undertake all these things "in house"...but the fact is that
they just don't have the resources.

What would you do? Put off work on important work of great public
interest? Or, form creative links with private concerns that DO have
the resources to tackle the problem?

I'm not against having links between the CDC, the private sector, and
academia. I just believe that the current system of reviewing potential or
actual conflicts of interest with CDC (and FDA, NIH, etc.) employees is
dysfunctional and, thus, needs to be overhauled.

We currently have a system that requires some politicians to place their
assets into blind trusts to help prevent conflicts of interest, and yet,
according to Representative Dan Burton (R-Indiana) "the CDC routinely
allows scientists with blatant conflicts of interest to serve on
influential advisory committees that make recommendations on new vaccines,
as well as policy matters." Burton adds: "All the while these same
scientists have financial ties, academic affiliations, and other vested
interests in the products and companies for which they are supposed to be
providing unbiased oversight." http://tinyurl.com/h3zzr


You can't just look at the fact that a patent was held by someone and
draw much of any conclusion there. Doesn't really tell you much at
all...and it certainly DOES NOT indicate that there was some sort of
intent to profit.

I agree that it does not indicate that there is "some sort of intent to
profit," but with respect to a CDC employee, it may represent a caution
sign about a potential conflict(s) of interest.


For goddssakes...just everyday common sense SHOULD tell you that you
are NOT going to find evidence of a criminal conspiracy of some sort in
a PUBLIC document in the PATENT OFFICE.

Straw-man argument. I never stated that a public document in the patent
office provides evidence of a criminal conspiracy.

Also, the fact that a person/entity/relationship passes regulatory or legal
scrutiny does not necessarily imply that (s)he/it is ethically sound.


Such a crackdown is long overdue, IMO.

Yeah, well, don't hold your breath. From what I saw of this, the
proposal seemed to just be about adding yet another layer of review.

Another "committee" to review the "committee".

This is a procedural, rather than a structural approach to a more broad
longterm problem...and is typical of non-thinking kneejerk fixes in
government, in my opinion.

I agree that a comprehensive, structural approach is needed to address the
issue.


-=-
This message was sent via two or more anonymous remailing services.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Urgent notice on Congressional letter
    ... And that's the real dirty truth behind Lyme disease research for all ... >> It was part of the language in a committee report. ... Sections of medical protocols that rely on the CDC LD Case ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: Christine Jennings ends hunger strike
    ... >> on the question of sexual transmission, particularly the CDC, well ... I think that if you look around the world of disease advocacy ... the screws to NIH for more research money. ... spending a single penny to research whether or not Lyme can be sexually ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: CDC appears to promotes Spread of Lyme Disease
    ... CT ATTORNEY GENERAL RICHARD BLUMENTHAL at the May 7, 2005 Lyme ... I don't think that the CDC promotes the spread of Lyme, ... it's clear that the CDC is about health information spin, ... CDC appears to promote Spread of Lyme Disease ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: BIOWARFARE
    ... if that is all anyone who has Lyme does. ... It's interesting that McSweegan defended Plum Island, ... Now that the FDA, NIH, and CDC ... All they do is vaccines. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
  • Re: GAUVIN BREAKING THE LAW
    ... It misses more than 96% of the late chronic neurologic Lyme. ... Klempner could only find 78 out of 1800 CDC positive cases ... Steere and the Lyme criminals say Lyme disease is a DISEASE, ... thinks we're humans. ...
    (sci.med.diseases.lyme)
Quantcast