| McSweegan is INSANE 2006-10-13, 8:22 am |
| Subject: Jeffrey Drazen's (NEJM) New New England Journal of Medical
Hypocrisy
To: jdrazen@nejm.org, thomas.carson@usdoj.gov, dhaar@courant.com,
horgan@courant.com, NEMag@courant.com, bmiller@newstimes.com,
eliot.spitzer@oag.state.ny.us, trvl@hotmail.com, rastro18@aol.com,
billcurry@comcast.net, amcguigan@rms-law.com, rjmurzyn@aol.com, Send an
Instant Message paulcraigroberts@yahoo.com, Send an Instant Message
sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com, Vicky.jaffe@mslpr.com,
criminal.division@usdoj.gov, karla.dobinski@usdoj.gov,
lymeliter@aol.com, christopher.christie@usdoj.gov, francam@ucia.gov,
governor.rell@po.state.ct.us, fitzmas@gmail.com,
patrick.fitzgerald@usdoj.gov, modelt1918@sbcglobal.net
CC: Jgerberding@cdc.gov, conndcj@po.state.ct.us,
executive-editor@nytimes.com, managing-editor@nytimes.com,
news-tips@nytimes.com, dvbid@cdc.gov, brigidcallahan@optonline.net,
james.phillips@yale.edu, mas1@concentric.net, jhornberger@fff.org,
leonard.boyle@po.state.ct.us, FalNields@aol.com,
bransfield@comcast.net, vtsherr@comcast.net, mcneilel@aol.com,
oca@po.state.ct.us, dand@davila-dilzer.com,
scott.murphy@po.state.ct.us, attorney.general@po.state.ct.us,
patrick.clifford@jud.state.ct.us, rstricker@usmamed.com,
thomas.ryan@po.state.ct.us, cpoitras@courant.com, LoftusHome@cs.com
Today in the New England Journal, Drazen is a co-author on an editorial
about the Institute of Medicine's (a very interest-conflicted entity
which should not exist at all) review of the FDA:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content...act/NEJMe068237
But neither the IOM, nor the New England Journal, nor the other
journals, nor the FDA or the GAO ever demand that the FDA actually look
at the data they have been presented by BigPharma. The FDA recuses
themselves from this duty, since the FDA is a cult like the DCF, like
the American Medical Associatrion, the American Psychiatric
Association, like the CT Bar Association, like the CT Medical Board,
like all of these sleazy incompetent little cliques of me-firsters and
me-besters: "It's all about our *us* and our healthy, wealthy early
retirement."
1) The FDA never looks at the data presented to it by BigPharma, yet
they write the rules for validations of analytical methods. FDA
*disclaims* their own responsibility to look at the data in the New
Drug Applications filings that they simultaneously demand from
BigPharma. This I learned for a fact last week from the FDA. It's all
about their disclaimers, just like the Infectious Diseases Society's
disclaimer on Lyme disease.
2) ID Society disclaims their advice on Lyme, yet the CDC references
their's (Formerly the CDC referenced the ALDF.com's baloney that the
ALDF simultaneously disclaimed, but since Dave Weld died, and he, as
brother of William Weld, needed a job, the same characters simply use
the IDSA as their channel for their baloney-spreading.) It's one big
cute little CDC perp's circle jerk out of Ft. Collins, Colorado, where
all the CDC Lyme patent owners mess around with things like scrapie
(Oops. Again.)
http://v3.espacenet.com/family?DB=E...=0&textdoc=TRUE
CDC is clearly interest-conflicted if their names are on the SmithKline
patents. The only thing worth patenting and *licensing* is flagellin
DNA from these spirochetes, since that's the only consistent antibody
in all Lyme victims, says YALE:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum
No one has been licensed to use this method in 15 years, yet it is the
most accurate test, and earliest test for Lyme, according to FDA rules
for the validation of an analytical method.
3) The New England Journal published a report by Allen Steere in 1994
in which Steere found that Lyme spirochete DNA persisted for up to 10
years in a third of the Lyme patients despite multiple courses of
antibiotic treatment, even when the primers used were questionable,
since Lyme is a relapsing fever:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/330/4/229
4) The New England Journal published Mark Klempner's important breaking
news that Lyme is an imaginary disease, and that's why antibiotics
don't cure it, after Klempner reported that Lyme was probably a
persisting infection that is resistent to ceftriaxone due to the
intracellularity of the Lyme spirochete
(See below or my website- the homepage, all the proof is there
ActionLyme.org).
5) The New England Journal had to change its editorial/review policies
because they could not find enough reviewers who are not interest
conflicted.
6) The New England Journal, Jeffrey Drazen, has been given the proof
that Mark Klempner is lying his face off, and says the complete
opposite of what Alan Barbour, another CDC officer and another head of
a CDC Level IV bioweapons lab says about borreliosis:
http://www.ucihs.uci.edu/microbio/i...ty/barbour.html
"Lyme disease and relapsing fever. These tick-borne infections are
notable for
multiphasic antigenic variation through DNA recombinations in the case
of
relapsing fever, the occurrence of chronic arthritis in the case of
Lyme
disease, and invasion of and persistence in the brain in the case of
both
diseases."
but Drazen says nothing. Drazen did not demand a retraction from
Klempner
of this nonsense:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/abstract/345/2/85
Drazen and the NEJM are happy for the FDA to look like the incompetents
when the fiasco of Lyme and LYMErix could have been avoided if the
journals were responsible and accountable for what they publish, and
were
upfront about the obvious:
1) Klempner determines that ceftriaxone does not kill all the
spirochetes:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum
"Thus, several eukaryotic cell types provide the Lyme disease
spirochete with a
protective environment contributing to its long-term survival."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum
"These observations suggest that B. burgdorferi can adhere to,
penetrate, and
invade human fibroblasts in organisms that remain viable."
Klempner's Matrix-Metalloproteinases in the spinal fluid of Lyme
patients
which he thinks are contributing to the dementia:
http://www.actionlyme.org/Retro_Klempnerization.htm
(You have to print out one jpg file at a time by selecting it first and
copying
it to a Word document)
ABSTRACT of that scanned in report:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum
Klempner later published that there are no valid markers of illness in
CNS
Lyme patients and is an author of the IDSA guidelines:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...l=pubmed_docsum
====
There's also an NEJM article published today about ALS and gliosis, in
the NEJM. Take note of the journal articles where Yale's Robert Schoen
and an IDSociety Lyme guidelines author (Halperin) previously reported
that Lyme is associated with ALS in 47% of the cases in Lyme endemic
areas, and about Schoen's Lyme-associated gliosis linked from y
homepage.
If Lyme is the New Great Imitator, why does the NEJM allow it to be
published that Lyme is an imaginary disease? I don't get the part
where a very serious disease that needs all this funding to "study," is
a case of massive, collective American hypochondria, and that that in
itself, is not published?
Why is there no study being published in any of the journals which
seeks out the root cause of the national epidemic of hypochondria and
Munchausen's asociated with a tick bite?
VIJAY SIKAND SAYING LYME IS LATENT IN THE BRAIN
LIKE SYPHILIS AT THE FDA MEETING IN 1998 WHEN THEY WERE
TRYING TO PASS OFF A BOGUS VACCINE:
http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC...scpt/3422t1.rtf
"In particular, the specter of asymptomatic infection is something that
troubles
me a great deal and troubles a great number of my colleagues who need
to treat
Lyme disease. The obvious analogy with syphilis infection with
Treponema
pallidus is there to consider. It is well known that Borrelia
burgdorferi
indeed after asymptomatic infection can lurk or secrete itself in
certain areas
of the body, perhaps the central nervous system or perhaps the joint
spaces,
only to reappear months or maybe years later in the form of late stages
of
illness which are harder to diagnosis and treat..."
=========
Is that the same thing as "Lyme is easily diagnosed and cured?"
We don't need the Journal and we don't need the commentary from
hypocrits and incompetents. We have no reason to trust the validity of
any of their articles. In fact, I usually simply delete the headlines
of the NEJM emailed to me regularly, but today I was cleaning out my
mailbox and decided to just do a quick NEJM-baloney-check, and Viola!!
|