Re: Anna, you misunderstand the vaccine

[EMAIL PROTECTED] ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Greg Gerber) wrote in message 

> I am NOT advocating suing family physicians...GPs...I agree totally
> that is NOT helpful. I was merely indicating that if there was ANY
> route of legal recourse...then it would have to come through the
> treating/examining physician.

I don't think there is much case for a lawsuit unless a physician has
violated the published standard of care --and some do. If a patient
presents with an EM rash or with frank arthritis followed by a
positive (by CDC criteria) Western blot and the physician still fails
to diagnose or treat Lyme disease, THIS is probably grounds for a
suit. That's about it.

 
> Yes, I am talking about the C6. My understanding(could be wrong) is
> that it is also reactive to afezelli and garnii...is highly
> specific..."could discriminate between Lyme borreliosis and infections
> with spirochetes of different species but of the same or different
> genera". 

c6 will be able to detect b. burgdorferi sensu stricto and lato --yes
including afezelli and garnii-- especially in early disease. The
PROBLEM is really that borreliosis can result from species aside from
these, and more are being discovered all the time across the
continental US. Master's disease in the lone star tick is one. The
relapsing fever borrelia in deer ticks discovered at Yale is another.
And there are many others and they are now thought to be widespread
--causing symptoms just like Lyme disease and requiring the same
treatment, and by the way, often seroreacting partially with tests
like the standard Elisa and Western blot. When Lyme is deemed a
clinical diagnosis, these other borrelioses fall under the Lyme
umbrella. With c6 they no longer will, because they are taxonomically
remote from burgdorferi, and the test will fail to detect them as a
result. The existence of a precise test that excludes these other
borrelial infections now found to be prevalent can, sadly, be misused
and become a tool for more missed patients. It is a good test but the
political climate makes it a danger to Lyme patients because the
context is sure to be misunderstood. We actually need a broader test
that can detect borreliosis in general --not just Lyme borreliosis--
and we need LESS RESTRICTIVE guidelines for viewing serology to
reflect the new information of the RANGE of borrelias infecting us.


The manufacturer says that the CDC is insisting that they(the
> My presence here has been to merely demonstrate the
> lack of evidence for any conspiracy...believe it or not...the
> suggestion has been made here that Lyme patients have been MURDERED no
> less, because of the "vaccine"...whatever that means...and the removal
> of OspA. THAT is what I am responding to...as I believe I told you in
> response to your first post.

There is no evidence of conspiracy that I have ever seen; I think
plenty wrong has been done in Lyme without the need for a conspiracy
theory, and I personally REJECT such theories. But that doesn't make
the removal of OspA okay --it doesn't mean that the scientists who
removed it were unaware that some patients would go undiagnosed as a
result. They WERE aware of this but decided to remove it anyway in
what amounts to an executive decision that factored the vaccine and
other issues into the equation.THAT's my point --no conspiracy was
needed, for they acted with impunity. Removal of Osps A and B, which
are upregulated in late disease while C is downregulated, makes it
less likely that late stage patients will have a fully confirmatory
Western blot or in some cases any serological evidence of infection.
It makes it less likely that they will be diagnosed and treated. Yes,
I do take ethical issue with this and other things, but it has nothing
whatsoever to do with a conspiracy theory.

> What I found impliedly insulting was the remark "that since I do not
> work for Glaxo, I have no problem speaking out"...which implies that
> others here do, in fact, work for Glaxo...which is insulting.
> For that, I believe you owe an apology.

LOL I do not think that ANYONE here works for Glaxo, for the record,
OR that Glaxo or the government or anyone else is hiring "trolls" to
sway opinion on this silly newsgroup. I do not think they pay much if
any attention to all this, to tell you the truth,  or that more than
30 people worldwide are reading what we write, IF that many. I am
convinced that virtually everyone here except for "Charles Adams" is a
Lyme patient --and god knows what his motivation is, but I doubt it
has to do with Lyme disease. I see --well I am sorry if anyone thought
I was suggesting they work for the pharmaceutical industry.

GG