Re: This is not a scientific argument 12) Lyme is RICO because of the organized, planned harassment by McSweegan and Yale's Durland Fish:


ActionLyme wrote:
From:
kmdickson@xxxxxxxxxxx

[Add to Address Book]
To:
SpinLyme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jdrazen@xxxxxxxx, letters@xxxxxxxxxxx,
Jgerberding@xxxxxxx, lender@xxxxxxxxxxx, motomaniac_02186@xxxxxxxxx,
conndcj@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, executive-editor@xxxxxxxxxxx,
managing-editor@xxxxxxxxxxx, news-tips@xxxxxxxxxxx,
the-arts@xxxxxxxxxxx, bizday@xxxxxxxxxxx, foreign@xxxxxxxxxxx,
metro@xxxxxxxxxxx, national@xxxxxxxxxxx, sports@xxxxxxxxxxx,
dvbid@xxxxxxx, brigidcallahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, trvl@xxxxxxxxxxx,
ubinas@xxxxxxxxxxx, spinlyme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mas1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
campbell@xxxxxxxxxxx, jhornberger@xxxxxxx, thomas.carson@xxxxxxxxx,
editor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, kurtzh@xxxxxxxxxxxx, georgewill@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
horgan@xxxxxxxxxxx, commissioner.dcf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
cohencolumn@xxxxxxx, leonard.boyle@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, FalNields@xxxxxxx,
bransfield@xxxxxxxxxxx, vtsherr@xxxxxxxxxxx, mcneilel@xxxxxxx,
oca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dand@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
scott.murphy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, attorney.general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx,
patrick.clifford@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, thomas.ryan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
CC:
francam@xxxxxxxx,dr-ahmadinejad@xxxxxxxxxxxx,
eugenerobinson@xxxxxxxxxxxx, dhaar@xxxxxxxxxxx, horgan@xxxxxxxxxxx,
bmiller@xxxxxxxxxxxxx, eliot.spitzer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, trvl@xxxxxxxxxxx,
rastro18@xxxxxxx, billcurry@xxxxxxxxxxx, thomas.carson@xxxxxxxxx,
amcguigan@xxxxxxxxxxx, rjmurzyn@xxxxxxx, paulcraigroberts@xxxxxxxxx,
sidney_blumenthal@xxxxxxxxx, criminal.division@xxxxxxxxx,
karla.dobinski@xxxxxxxxx, christopher.christie@xxxxxxxxx,
francam@xxxxxxxx, governor.rell@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fitzmas@xxxxxxxxx,
patrick.fitzgerald@xxxxxxxxx, modelt1918@xxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is not a scientific argument
Date:
Wednesday, December 13, 2006 4:22:33 AM

[View Source]

Answering the response (below) to the bogus Gary Wormser Guidelines on
Lyme.

That's not a scientific argument.


YOU HAVE TO SAY:

1) The testing for Lyme is bogus, and Gary Wormser himself says so:
http://www.actionlyme.org/HOW_RICO_WILL_BE_CHARGED.htm
For Late Lyme, Wormser published that the CDC's IgG method was 1/28
accurate, or 4% accurate. Klempner also found this standard to be 4%
accurate (or 78/1800).

That means Klempner and Wormser and the CDC all know that
the current IgG testing for Lyme misses 96% of the cases.


2) Klempner found the MS haploype DQB1*0602 in the MS version of
Lyme but he never reported it. Hear him discuss this still secret
finding on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPn_T9qy4C0&mode=related&search=


3) Klempner found that ceftriaxone does not kill all the spirochetes
even when there ISN'T human cells for them to hide in. Here is the
full text of that scanned in. Read it carefully:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Mark_Klempner_Fibroblasts.htm


4) No one agreed with Steere on IgG at Dearborn:
http://www.actionlyme.org/DICKSON_FDA_SUBMISSION_FULL.htm


5) Congenital Lyme certainly exists and here are 3 reports,
2 by Yale and one by Allen Steere wherein they discuss congenital
Lyme:
http://www.actionlyme.org/MOMS_CAN_GIVE_LYME_TO_BABIES.htm


6) There has never been a study of what the blood testing looks
like in Late Lyme, and so Klempner FALSELY used the CDC's
early Lyme IgG criteria (in itself, a conflict in terms) to assess
late,
treated Lyme victims:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=11450676&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum


7) Klempner discovered nerve degrading enzymes in the spinal fluid
of people with neurologic Lyme, and later published (FRAUD) that late
neurologic Lyme had no objective markers of disease:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Retro_Klempnerization.htm


8) The bad guys know what primers to use to detect spirochetes in
ticks, but they have never used these (to our knowledge, because
Klempner has never published or revealed which primers he used
to detect Borrelia DNA in the spinal fluid his victims, and refuses to
reveal this):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=12514035&query_hl=5&itool=pubmed_docsum


9) Klempner, Wormser at al, although they have received the
funding and performed the analyses which determined the VALID
MARKERS OF ILLNESS, have never applied these methods in
determinations of outcomes in controlled trials of anything:
http://www.actionlyme.org/BIOMARKERS.htm
GFAp, Quin, QEEG, gadolinium MRI, MMP-130, neopterins,
cytokines panel, SPECT, PET, lymphocyte, granulocyte,
and other o-penias associated with co-infections for which there
is NO VALID TEST, even worse than Lyme.


10) Lyme not detected early can result in ALS, which is deadly:
http://www.actionlyme.org/ALS_&_Lyme_47%25.htm


11) Yale has the best test for BURGDORFERI, although no one
cares if their symptoms are from Borrelia OuterMongolia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1894359&query_hl=14&itool=pubmed_docsum


12) Lyme is RICO because of the organized, planned harassment
by McSweegan and Yale's Durland Fish:
http://www.actionlyme.org/TICK_BITE_CONSPIRACY.htm

This is in evidence already in Blumenthal's possession because it is
an exhibit given to him in 1999 by Karen Forschner of the Lyme Disease
Foundation at his 1999 Lyme conference:
http://www.ct.gov/ag/cwp/view.asp?A=2130&Q=294656


13) Yale (Schoen) knew in 1995 that they could not read their Western
Blots in LYMErix vaccinated people, so they simply lied to the FDA
about
their LYMErix vaccine trial results:
http://jcm.asm.org/cgi/reprint/35/1/233?ijkey=5f019f9ccf930965b08b15f9830d7cc8f9ff429b
about LYMErix' efficacy and safety.



So, it's SCIENTIFIC FRAUD and racketeering, because this is the
perps' *own* data.

*THAT* is how you argue it.

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


Not a single thing IDSA says about Lyme disease is true.

Not one single thing,

...and the CDC approves of this nonsense because they are
participating financially it this spin:
http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=EPODOC&IDX=WO9324145&F=8&OREQ=0&textdoc=TRUE


This is the "CORRUPTION in GOVERNMENTS that affects all
nations," about which the UN is now having a talk near the DEAD
SEA (appropriately).
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=UN+CORRUPTION+DEAD+SEA&btnG=Search+News

This is a huge international scam primarily conducted by
Yale University.


I haven't once seen ILADS write it up properly, but then, they
have numerous conflicts of interest, too. Most of them are these
psychiatric flakes who have no clue what "scientifically valid"
means - and are insulted by such concepts- and Igenex is happy
with the status quo.

The whole thing is best handled therefore by the UN and foreign
nations by boycotting all US-UK-Israeli "science," rendering any
US scientists who are now in their countries to Saudi Arabia for
psychotherapy (with Alberto Gonzales), and boycotting all our
"vaccines."
http://www.actionlyme.org/GUBMENT_LEAKERS.htm


Kathleen
-------------------------------------
To:
<SpinLyme@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject:
[SpinLyme] The IDSA's Inadequate Treatment of Lyme disease
Date:
Tuesday, December 12, 2006 9:15:40 PM

[View Source]

http://www.lymeblog.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=774

Opinion / Editorial: A Critical Analysis of Faulty IDSA
Guidelines on Lyme
disease

The IDSA's Inadequate Treatment of Lyme disease
ZoomShare
By Lisa M. Lane, Lyme disease patient/advocate


The IDSA's Inadequate Treatment of Lyme disease

In addition to the various studies and articles used to
determine
the Infectious Diseases Society of America's (IDSA) 2000 and 2006
guidelines on
Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment, there also exist a great deal of
valuable
data that the IDSA has either ignored or far too readily discounted.
Among such
data is evidence that the IDSA has not only failed to provide adequate
guidelines for Lyme disease diagnosis and treatment both in the past
and in the
present, but also that the IDSA is responsible for the pain and
suffering of
many chronic Lyme disease sufferers.

In constructing their 2006 IDSA guidelines, its writers
state that
"the panel weighed both the risks and consequences of
developing late complications of Lyme disease and the economic costs
and
possible adverse effects of antimicrobial therapy"[1]. More
importantly, they
add that "also considered were the inconvenience of prolonged
therapies, the
potential impact of the indiscriminate use of antibiotics on the
development of
antibiotic resistance in the community, and the economic costs."
Unfortunately,
a great deal of chronic Lyme disease patients now exist due to vague
diagnostic
definitions set by the IDSA's 2000 guidelines. With the choices of
issues
addressed in their 2006 guidelines, one must ask: how much has the IDSA
really
done over the years to improve the standard of care Lyme disease
patients
receive, to ensure an acceptable quality of testing procedures, or to
develop
safer and more effective treatment protocols?

Etc,

.