| Kathleen 2006-10-01, 4:29 pm |
|
http://www.actionlyme.org/GOLDWATER_LETTER.htm
Ilena Rose wrote:
> Note from Ilena Rosenthal: One of Barrett's most egregious shills, is
> out of self control again. This is dedicated to "Chuck":
>
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/DisinfoAgents.htm#Chuck
>
> www.BreastImplantAwareness.org/Quac...atch.htm#ColeAH
>
> Much like the Breast implant debacle, industry fools like McSweegan
> hide behind aliases with their industry propaganda. Patrick O'leary,
> now of Eurosilicone, hid behind an alias for years ... now he hides
> behind Coleah Penley Ayers.
>
>
> http://www.redflagsdaily.com/my_opinion/2005_jun23.html
>
> IN MY OPINION
> Challenging Quackwatch's Position on Lyme Disease
>
> By Marjorie Tietjen
> Director For Lyme Concerns
> Common Cause Medical Research Foundation
>
> The honest unvarnished truth concerning Lyme Disease, it's
> co-infections and chronic illness will be exposed. Deception and fraud
> eventually bring about their own demise. This is simply a natural law
> of the universe. In the meantime, however, we need to be alert to the
> methods used to deceive concerning this particular medical cover up.
> Here is a link to the article I am challenging.
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01Quacker...opics/lyme.html
>
> The folks at Quackwatch claim they have no financial and or political
> ties to government/corporations. Anyone can say this, but it would be
> difficult to prove. Actions, attitudes and results speak louder than
> words. "By their fruits ye shall know them." From what I've read on
> this website, it appears that the writers are extremely one- sided in
> their views and seem inclined to attack and ridicule.
>
> They speak a lot about "approved studies" and base many of their
> conclusions on these studies, many of which are carried out by
> universities and government agencies which are funded by the drug
> companies. Of course, many drug companies directly carry out their own
> research studies. Doesn't it seem very likely that their studies would
> be heavily biased?
>
> Just for the record, I don't believe that there is a single study out
> there that can prove the nonexistence of chronic active Lyme disease,
> but there are studies out there that irrefutably prove that Lyme can
> still be present in the body after many months of antibiotic
> treatment. http://www.lymeinfo.net/lymefiles.html. The Greater
> Hartford Lyme Disease Support and Action Group has put up a US$10,000
> reward to anyone who can prove that Lyme disease is always cured
> within 30 days of antibiotics and can never become actively chronic.
> This reward has been posted for over a year now and so far no one has
> responded. Many are beginning to observe that it is the private
> researchers, who have no such affiliations, who are being harassed and
> labeled as quacks, even when their work produces favorable results.
>
> Whatever happened to clinical observation and experience? Thousands of
> patients who have been labeled with various "autoimmune" diseases,
> have finally tested positive for Lyme, and were treated with long-term
> antibiotics, have either reclaimed much of their health, or at least
> have arrested their disease process. Not everyone improves however, as
> is also the case with many other accepted allopathic treatments.
> Reversing disability and sometimes death are the fruits of the Lyme
> doctors who are dedicated to their patients.
>
> What are the fruits of the mainstream medical system? All I see are
> symptomatic treatments for the plethora of symptoms caused by a single
> disease. Lyme disease can present with 40 or more symptoms. Every day
> we hear of a new drug advertised on T.V. to treat all those various
> symptoms. There is no long term profit in promoting a cure or a drug
> which would keep the disease process at bay.
>
> The Quackwatch article brought up two therapies - malaria therapy and
> ICHT (hyperthermia). These two treatments do seem to be more on the
> extreme end and I would advise a patient to do extensive research
> before undertaking these therapies. However, in the end, it should
> always be the patients' prerogative as to what treatments the patients
> employ. I think most of us are old enough to make these decisions and
> if this is really a free country we would have total access to any
> treatment, drug or natural remedy.
>
> The next therapy which was mentioned was hyperbaric oxygen therapy
> (HBO). I have heard of many positive and encouraging experiences from
> people who have tried this therapy. However, frequently people have to
> go for follow-up sessions, when and if symptoms recur at a later time.
> And then, as with accepted allopathic treatment, sometimes for certain
> people there is no improvement. Everyone is different. The author
> mentioned an anecdote which seems to be for the purpose of suggesting
> that those who offer natural treatments are all shysters. The story
> mentioned that the director of a clinic, where a patient had her
> unsuccessful HBO treatment, would not refund her money. How many drug
> companies do you know of that refund our money when their drugs don''t
> work for a particular patient ... or even causes serious side effects?
> HBO treatment may be fairly expensive but it is noninvasive and
> effective for many. Quackwatch brings up the fact that no studies have
> been implemented for the treatment of Lyme disease with HBO therapy.
> This implies that it is not even worth a try. If HBO therapy is so
> effective for other disorders then why hasn't an "accepted" medical
> study been done in this area? I would think it would uncover very
> valuable information concerning the role of oxygen in the treating of
> many infectious diseases. Maybe this is why there are no studies.
> Again, cures do not result in profit.
>
> The use of colloidal silver was also frowned upon by the author of the
> Quackwatch article. From what I've learned, colloidal silver (CS) was
> used successfully for many purposes before modern antibiotics were
> ever invented. Perhaps the use of this substance is discouraged
> because drug companies would be unable to patent this natural product.
> It also can be easily made at home. I am acquainted with many patients
> who take CS on a regular basis and most have been helped immensely. It
> may or may not be a cure in every instance but it appears to arrest
> the disease process and many have experienced vast improvement. I have
> yet to see anyone turn gray ... which was the reason Quackwatch gave
> for not taking CS. The article states that the FDA is not aware of any
> substantial scientific evidence that supports the use of CS for
> diseases listed in the article. Well, maybe then it's time to initiate
> some studies to investigate this apparently helpful substance.
>
> Another subject covered was the alleged overuse of IV antibiotics. The
> more prevalent use of oral antibiotics and the fact that they are much
> cheaper, was not discussed. Intravenous antibiotics are known,
> potentially, to have more severe side effects than oral antibiotics so
> it would be prudent to administer sufficient doses of orals whenever
> possible, before resorting to the IV. In some severe neurological
> cases, some doctors would, of course, want to try the IV antibiotics
> first. Using orals, whenever possible, before going the IV route is
> already the policy of most Lyme literate physicians. Many times higher
> doses of specific oral antibiotics will travel through the blood brain
> barrier with as much efficiency as the IV antibiotics if taken for a
> long enough period.
>
> All this is not to say that there are no unscrupulous IV companies out
> there, just as it would be ludicrous to believe there are no
> unscrupulous pharmaceutical companies foisting thousands of
> symptomatic treatments on those with chronic illness. Most of these
> drugs cause a vast range of symptoms directly attributed to the drugs
> themselves, which then calls for more symptomatic treatments to cover
> up the new symptoms. The more drugs are prescribed, the more money
> the drug companies rake in. I truly believe this is the primary reason
> why Lyme is such a political disease and why we are being denied the
> necessary antibiotics. Syphilis is a very close spirochetal cousin to
> Lyme disease. If you are not already familiar with the Tuskegee
> experiment, I would suggest researching into that government crime.
>
> Concerning my own case, I was not diagnosed until eight years in to
> the disease. I was told I had Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, which, of
> cours,e has no cure =AD- only symptomatic treatments. This late
> diagnosis resulted in tertiary or late stage Lyme disease with much
> brain and nervous system involvement. At this point I was very
> grateful to have found a doctor who has had success in treating many
> chronic Lyme patients. This doctor tested me via the Western Blot.
> Although I was negative, this doctor knew, according to my symptoms,
> history and location, that I was most likely infected with borrelia
> burgdorferi (Bb), the causative agent of Lyme disease. I was treated
> with a high dose of doxycycline, which is known to penetrate the blood
> brain barrier at higher than normal doses. I did have herxheimer
> reactions which lessened with each month of treatment. There does
> appear to be a cyclic nature to the herxheimer and this may have to do
> with the life cycle of the Lyme bacteria and its pleomorphic nature. I
> did not even begin to show improvement till the end of the fourth
> month. After the four months some of the symptoms were gone and others
> were diminished in severity.
>
> At this point, I was retested using the Western Blot and I was
> positive. This happens to quite a few patients. It is believed that
> this phenomenon is due to the breaking up of the circulating immune
> complexes. In other words, those who are sickest with the disease are
> the most likely to test negative, until enough spirochetes are killed
> off, which then would make antibodies available for measurement. This
> may partly explain the difficult time the Columbia university study
> had in finding patients to meet their study entrance criteria. There
> are many reasons why you can test negative and still have Lyme
> disease.
> http://www.mentalhealthandillness.c...ymedisease.html
>
> After six years of intermittent treatment, I improved greatly, but it
> was not until I have been on antibiotics, consistently now for a year
> and a half, that I finally feel that I have my life back. It is
> important to realize that you also have to be treated holistically in
> order to receive substantial improvement. This can include lifestyle
> changes, changes in diet, certain herbal supplements, probiotics and
> other natural treatments. The immune system must be supported.
>
> I know from first hand experience that chronic active Lyme is real and
> that the longer one goes without treatment, the more difficult the
> microbe is to eradicate. I was headed for total disability but thanks
> to the few brave doctors out there who treat chronic Lyme, I am now
> leading an almost normal life. It's an obvious example of cause and
> effect. Patients are sick with a chronic illness, they are treated
> with appropriate doses of antibiotics, for the needed length of time
> and, so, most people significantly improve. I really don't see why
> there should be a controversy, unless, of course, the controversy is
> related to politics and profits.
>
> Now, as far as transmission of Lyme disease from the mother to the
> fetus is concerned, Quackwatchers tell us "there have been no
> documented cases of mother-child transmission and no cases of fetal
> injury associated with a lyme infection." A recent state hearing in
> Connecticut featured a testimony which did document mother-child
> transmission. Three years prior to the hearing, Elise Brady-Moe was
> misdiagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis. About half a year later she
> tested positive for Lyme disease and was treated for seven months with
> antibiotics before she felt safe enough to conceive a child. She was
> 18 weeks pregnant when her baby died. The placenta and the fetus
> tested PCR positive for Lyme disease. Brady-Moe then went on another
> round of antibiotics for six months before conceiving her next child.
> It did not survive past nine weeks. She again requested a Lyme test
> and again the placenta was PCR positive for Lyme. Her problems went on
> for a bit more and you can view her whole testimony, along with the
> rest of the hearing proceedings at
> http://www.cslib.org/attygenl/health/0129lyme.pdf . Here you will find
> many other testimonies describing the life shattering effects of
> chronic Lyme disease.
>
> Does Quackwatch feel that all these people are lying and that testing
> records were falsified? Or are they simply ignorant of the facts?
>
> Under the heading of Political Aspects, the writer of the Quackwatch
> article goes on to ridicule those who form support groups for chronic
> Lyme sufferers. Evidently he is implying there is no such thing as
> chronic Lyme and that those who believe that they have Lyme, and form
> support groups, must be delusional. Chronic Lyme is not a belief
> system or a religion or a figment of the imagination. It is a
> devastating chronic progressive neurological disease, as is its cousin
> syphilis. Patients are demanding and certain doctors are prescribing
> long-term antibiotics because they work ... period! Syphilis, which
> is also a spirochete, also frequently requires open ended antibiotic
> treatment. Why would it be so surprising to find out that Lyme could
> also be congenitally and sexually transmitted, as syphilis is?
>
> Patients and knowledgeable physicians criticize those who block their
> treatments for an obvious reason; they want to get well. Clinical
> experience, testing and autopsies have proven that Lyme can be a
> chronic infection.
>
> Before the Smithkline Beecham Lyme vaccine ever hit the market, many
> informed people in the Lyme community were aware that 30% of vaccine
> recipients, with a specific genetic marker, would be at risk of
> developing an immune arthritis which could be worse than Lyme disease
> itself and would be incurable. SmithKline Beecham did not advise the
> public of this fact. When the vaccine came out it was being
> administered at drug stores, grocery stores, etc. To my knowledge,
> there were no doctors present or literature to explain this risk or to
> ask the recipients if they currently had Lyme disease, as this was
> another risk factor. I stood outside of grocery stores handing out
> information which fairly presented both sides of the controversy. I
> wanted people to have the information so they could intelligently
> decide for themselves whether or not to receive the vaccine. Two
> people, who worked at this grocery store, and saw me distributing
> material, told me they were in the vaccine trial study and they were
> now newly labeled with Fibromyalgia.
>
> I was present at a Lyme disease conference where SmithKline Beecham
> had sent a representative to speak to us. There were many doctors in
> the audience, along with patients and advocates. The whole
> presentation consisted of a slide show showing the different types of
> Lyme rashes. When the speaker was finished, a doctor stood up and said
> we were hoping you would share with us information concerning the
> reported adverse reactions of the vaccine. The SmithKline Beecham Rep.
> stated that there were no significant reactions observed or reported.
> A very loud, collective groan rose from the audience. We knew that to
> be a complete lie. Doctors were continually being faced with vaccine
> recipients who had either become much worse or they now had Lyme
> disease where they didn't before. Of course, not everyone was
> adversely affected. We want to know why SmithKline Beecham did not
> warn the public that a significant number of people, (30% of the
> population) could contract a serious disease (Treatment Resistant
> Arthritis), from this vaccine.
>
> In front of me I have a copy of a Class Action Law Suit with Karen
> Cassidy as the plaintiff and SmithKline Beecham as the defendant.
> Cassidy was also representing others who were adversely affected by
> the vaccine. It is rather long, but I would like to include the
> following excerpt which summarizes the deception involved:
>
> "73. The Defendant (SmithKline Beecham) has made or caused to be
> made, through advertisements, directly or indirectly, explicitly or by
> implication, representations and omissions of fact which are material,
> false, deceptive and/or likely to mislead consumers, including but not
> limited to the following:
>
> 1. That the LYMErix vaccine was safe and effective for it's intended
> use.
>
> 2. That the LYMErix vaccine did not pose an increased risk of
> Treatment Resistant Lyme Arthritis to those vaccinees who are HLA -
> DR4+.
>
> 3. The Defendant had fully disclosed it's knowledge of the heightened
> risks and incidence of adverse reactions, including but not limited to
> the heightened risk of Treatment Resistant Lyme Arthritis among HLA -
> DR4+ vaccinees;
>
> 4. That LYMErix was safe and effective to those individuals suffering
> from asymptomatic or early Lyme disease at the time of vaccination;
> and
>
> 5. That a single course of LYMErix vaccination would provide permanent
> or continuous protection against Lyme disease.
>
> 74. Contrary to Defendant's representations:
>
> 1. LYMErix vaccine is neither safe nor effective for its intended
> use;
>
> 2. Vaccinees with HLA-DR4+ gene are at a significantly increased risk
> of developing Treatment Resistant Lyme Arthritis;
>
> 3. Defendant has suppressed and concealed material information
> developed by or otherwise known to them concerning the adverse health
> effects and/or incidence of adverse reactions associated with the
> vaccine, including but not limited to increased risk of Treatment
> Resistant Lyme Arthritis;
>
> 4. Vaccinees suffering from asymptomatic or early Lyme disease, at
> the time of vaccination, will suffer from a more progressive and
> enhanced Lyme disease than they would have absent the vaccine;
>
> 5. The LYMErix vaccination requires that, in order to maintain the
> advertised levels of protection against Lyme disease, vaccinees shall
> require booster shots with as-yet undetermined frequency, thereby
> exposing vaccinees who are HLA -DR4+, to heightened and ongoing risk
> and expense.
>
> 75. Defendant's deceptive representations and actions and omissions of
> fact have been and are material, false, deceptive and /or likely to
> mislead consumers about the adverse health consequences of LYMErix and
> therefore constitute deceptive acts or practices."
>
> Here is a link to an article discussing this vaccine fiasco
> http://www.sheller.com/Practice.asp?PracticeID=3D32
>
> So, do you think that SmithKline Beecham withdrew its vaccine from the
> market due to simple lack of public interest, as SmithKline Beecham
> and Quackwatch states? Or is it more likely that so many people were
> harmed by the vaccine and that this was the cause for it being taken
> out of circulation?=20
>=20
> I rest my case.
|