I wouldn't discourage anyone from trying to get people prosecuted. I do believe it's futile but the discussion and debate is CRITICAL. The more we talk, the more people understand the truth even if it comes out in teeny tiny blips.
I think you have done an impressive amount of research and you've uncovered some good info. My posts aren't in disagreement but to also share what I've uncovered and to suggest the picture is a little bigger.
For the record, I don't fall under either of the two categories you describe. I'm not suggesting that it's not an accurate descript
ion of two categories of Bb manifestation, but I think the picture is larger and probably even more complex and convoluted.
The complexity of the science--even the "early" science (or as I call it, the bad science) was produced to match the symptoms of the early patients. And the symptoms of the early patients were limited in definition in order to cleanly define the early studies ("clean" meaning - with the end result in mind).
In other words, it's just bad science all-around. But it's the primary critique of the Steere era and that was the foundation of all the subsequent studies and standards, etc. to follow. It was this early definition of Lyme that established the parameters for the vaccine studies, which began in the 80s.
The pharmaceutical studies didn't need to falsify data (and I'm not claiming they didn't!!) - all they needed to do was design their studies to match the early science, the early definition. The foundation of all of it is what qualified as Lyme, which was based on two objective sx - arthritis and EM.
The only people approved for the vaccine trials had only those two sx (or they were the only sx that were acknowledged) and all a successful vaccine trial had to do was resolve these two sx during the time period specified in the trial.
The Dearborn decisions to manipulate the CDC case surveillance data and definition resulted in the change w/ the CDC testing methodology (removal of the bands, two-tiered process) as you described. This helped narrow the qualifications of new Lyme cases but this came after the vaccine development was well under way and frankly, irrelevant to the "early" science that skewed the vaccine trials.
There is a conflict of motivation, so-to-speak because the pharmaceutical industry wanted high demand, which would benefit from a high number of new cases, which in turn would suggest an impending/current epidemic or a trend toward that.
But the track record of the surveillance activities has ALWAYS been to suppress diagnosis of new cases and the reason is a logical one from an entomological perspective - a high level of specificity with a low level of comprehensive accuracy. Or in other words, for tracking purposes, the need to make sure they are identifying ONLY 100% Lyme cases (however they defined them) was more important than making sure they were grabbing all the cases in, say, CT. And we know "however they defined them" likely had a specific purpose, too.
You can dig into why but I think this was yet another product of a typically disconnected .gov process, an under-the-radar disease development, and a group of researchers who had other goals in mind than to prevent an epidemic they probably didn't anticipate. What evolved was probably different than anticipated.
So, back to the conflict in motivations -
The more people who were dx w/ Lyme, the fewer people who would qualify for the vaccine. This complicates the sequence of events or at least the suggestions that the vaccines and surveillance data and an influencing sequence, if that makes any sense. I think they were independent of ea other. We're really talking about
two separate bodies of influence (and beneficiaries) of two acts of manipulation with probably some overlap here and there.
My reference to the military has to do with the research that has been done that proves Lyme was in development as a bioweapon long before it became epidemic in the Lyme, CT area.
Regardless of whether or not it accidentally "leaked" from a lab or was intentionally leaked to study its effect on a population, or other theories that have evolved, the American public will never fully understand its engineered military origins. But its mutation is well-understood as a product of advanced engineering. And IMHO I believe this advanced engineering is why there is some hidden science, less understood science, highly debated and controversial science, which lends itself to the confusing studies. And these military roots are probably not even understood at the CDC level of the Lyme program, which can act with plausible deniability, if ignorant.
I think the two distinct classifications of Lyme (2 sx vs many) is enough to create the disaster we know, but the funny engineering has made the science inexact and maybe never definitive. There is a reason there has been almost no advancement in the science in 40 yrs and it's not because the IDSA is the bad guy.
I do think this is a very important discussion to have and I really appreciate your posts. And as difficult as it is, I think it's important that every Lyme patient have a solid grasp on most of this history (when they are able and capable of doing all this reading - it's not easy). I think there are basics to know while you're ill and recovering and then there are difficult truths that you and your loved ones must be aware of and talk about
openly.
These are my thoughts - I hope we continue to research and share... it's the only thing that has allowed us to uncover the truth so far. ;)
-p
Post Edited (Pirouette) : 5/10/2017 9:46:09 PM (GMT-6)