In the Lyme world, where everything is politicized and monetized, nothing can be taken at face value. Take this announcement, for example:

Embarrassingly, we had failed to look at it closely enough to see what was really going on, and interpreted it as more confirmation that about half of patients experience chronic effects of Lyme disease.

In our excitement we compared it to what Steere said in 1983 (published in 1984):

“Regardless of the antibiotic agent given, nearly half of patients still experienced minor late complications–recurrent episodes of headache or pain in joints, tendons, bursae, or muscles, often accompanied by lethargy [19]. Their physical examinations were usually normal.”

The Clinical Spectrum and Treatment of Lyme Disease

THE YALE JOURNAL OF BIOLOGY AND MEDICINE 57(1984)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2590003/pdf/yjbm00100-0016.pdf

 

…and Luft and Dattwyler said it in IDSA’s journal, Reviews of Infectious Diseases, in 1989:

“Clinical studies have documented the efficacy of antibiotics, but therapy has failed in as many as 50% of cases of chronic infection.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2682965

Note that these were both published long before the case definition was falsified at Dearborn in 1994. So these studies *should* have included the sickest patients—the 85% who DO NOT have a genetically linked hypersensitivity response. See the blots below:

The outer lanes of all three strips are the controls, so when you look at the inner lanes, there is a marked difference between the blots on the left and the blot on the right.

Before Dearborn, all of these represented cases of Lyme disease, despite a wide range of immune responses. The point is that there was an immune response to specific antigens. It doesn’t matter how strong it was; this is a basic concept in determining whether a method is valid. It’s called “limit of detection.” The crooks, in their greed and arrogance, decided that only the cases that could demonstrate a strong immune response to the fake vaccine, LYMErix, should be counted, and they threw the rest of us—the truly sick cases—in the trash, like so:

That’s why all of the research, from the early 1990s leading up to Dearborn, through the present, has to be viewed through the lens of only including the 15% of cases that tend to be an arthritic knee.

So, back to this UCSF study:

Upon closer inspection of the research report in question, http://mbio.asm.org/content/7/1/e00100-16.full#sec-16, it appears that Aucott, Chiu, Soloski, et al, are aiming to detect the minority of the 15% hypersensitivity cases who do actually have symptoms besides an arthritic knee.

Here’s what they did.

“The 29 Lyme disease patients were enrolled in a single season at the same geographic location, an outpatient clinic in suburban Maryland. (This would be Aucrock’s clinic of horrors—ed.) At the 6-month follow-up visit (V5), 15 patients had fully recovered from the infection while 13 experienced persistent symptoms post-treatment, defined as new-onset fatigue, widespread musculoskeletal pain involving ≥3 joints, and/or cognitive dysfunction (11); 1 patient was lost to follow-up.”

“Two-tiered antibody testing for Lyme disease with whole-cell lysates was positive in 20 (71.4%) of 28 patients tested, with 14/28 (50%) patients testing positive at the pretreatment visit and an additional 6/28 (21.4%) seroconverting during treatment (Table 1).”

Did you catch that?

1. They used the two-tier Dearborn standard that only detects the hypersensitive (lots of antibodies) arthritic knee cases.

2. They only tested 28 of the 29 enrollees.

They claim that one enrollee was “lost to follow up.”

Explain one thing to me, Dr. Aucrock: How the hell do you lose a patient to follow up before even testing him? Did he run from the room, screaming? Did he drop dead before you ran your fraudulent little test?

They go on to report:

***Of the 13 patients with persistent symptoms, 4 were diagnosed with PTLDS on the basis of a recently proposed standardized case definition that included a documented functional decline at 6 months as a key criterion (6).”***

Catch that? Someone has proposed a “standardized case definition” for “PTLDS,” which would divide the Dearborn-positive patients into two categories: the knees, and the autoimmune cases with ongoing symptomatology.

What proportion of ACTUAL Borrelia burgdorferi cases would such a test method detect?

Well, if you start with Dearborn identifying 15% (15/100), then apply the findings of this study—4 out of 28 (14% of the 15 cases out of every 100)—you’d detect two cases out of every 100 Borrelia burgdorferi infections.

Awesome, right?

And this creep is co-chair of the HHS tick borne disease Working Group recently exposed as a sham in our latest video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/rb1QlJ1BsCX9/

AND, whaddaya know? Aucott & Chiu patented a test method based on this double-fraud, and they’re looking for a buyer to help them commercialize it with Aucott’s employer, Johns Hopkins University.

http://jhu.technologypublisher.com/techcase/C14998

Let me ask you this. Does anyone really trust Johns Hopkins when it comes to any kind of spirochetal disease, after its lead role in not one, but two prior spirochetal crimes against humanity?

“BALTIMORE, April 1, 2015 /PRNewswire/ — Over 750 victims have sued The Rockefeller Foundation, the Johns Hopkins Hospital, the Johns Hopkins University, The Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, and the Johns Hopkins Health System Corporation, alleging that they were the driving force behind human experiments in which vulnerable populations of Guatemalans were deceived and intentionally exposed to syphilis, gonorrhea and other venereal diseases and pathogens, without giving any informed consent.

The experiments targeted school children, orphans, psychiatric hospital patients, prison inmates and military conscripts.

“This seems like something right out of Dr. Mengele’s notebook.”  That is how Bradley Stoner, MD, past President of the American Sexually Transmitted Disease Association, has described these Guatemala experiments in public statements, comparing them to the Nazi medical experiments inflicted upon Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World War.”

https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/rockefeller-johns-hopkins-behind-horrific-human-syphilis-experiments-allege-guatemalan-victims-in-lawsuit-300059537.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuskegee_syphilis_experiment

 

 

WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE?

 

Do I need to spell this out further?

Okay….Let’s take a look at the money changing hands.

I don’t know who Swartz and Stabler are, but we all certainly recognize NIH, Bay Area Lyme Foundation (BALF) and Global Lyme Alliance. I called GLA and left a message for Scott Santarella, asking if he is aware that his organization is supporting the frauds who keep us “chronic Lyme” patients sick, abused and marginalized, but he never called back. Interpret that as you will.

One important thing to note is that the Lyme Disease Research Foundation, Inc. is Aucrock’s fake nonprofit that he set up to be able to gather patient data in his own clinic and then share it with the Hopkins Mengele crew, where it can then be commercialized. Go ahead and look up his 990 forms, and you can see that he basically handed over $5 million in “donated” funds to the Johns Hopkins Mengele Memorial Lyme Research Center. Here, I’ll get you started:

Where that money came from in the first place, we are not allowed to know.

Here’s another fun fact: Aucrock’s fake nonprofit and BALF are ringleaders for the Lyme biobanks that are designed to collect “well-characterized sera” and other “well-characterized” tissue samples on behalf of the CDC. Says BALF:

“A major gap in Lyme disease research is the lack of well-characterized biological samples. We created the Lyme Disease Biobank (LDB) to help bridge that gap, ensuring that scientists have the samples they need for their research into better diagnostic tests for Lyme disease and related co-infections.”

https://www.bayarealyme.org/our-research/biobank/

What are “well characterized biological samples?”

That’s right. Well-characterized samples are the not-sick hypersensitive ouchie knee cases. Learn more about that in our new video: https://www.bitchute.com/video/rb1QlJ1BsCX9/

This sadistic piece of crap is NOT our friend.