This is a good video put together by the Arthroplasty Patient Foundation breaking down the State of CT public hearing in which Blumenthal asked him specific questions about
the reason why CT decided to stop the mandatory reporting to the CDC, why the surveillance criteria is still being used for diagnosis and treatment, etc.
/youtu.be/llCXpukPu_oThe video is interesting but the meat of it is in the slides the Foundation added - articulated below:
Public hearings were conducted in CT in ’04. Patient advocates, doctors and public health officials testified on the many problems associated with the epidemic of LD. The purpose of publishing this series is to show how certain officials’ positions on LD have changed. It’s also to show the CDC’s blatant failures in protecting the public.
“…I think there are two specific objectives today. And they are to eliminate the common use of excessively restrictive Federal reporting criteria to diagnose and treat LD and, second, to correct the under-counting of LD cases so that we can understand how widespread and severe this disease really is. On the one hand, under-diagnosis of LD because of excessive reliance on restrictive criteria and under-reporting of LD cases due to lack of funds or lack of interest on the part of relevant strategies. And that will be the focus as we go through the day, under-diagnosis and under-counting…” –Atty General Blumenthal, 1/29/04
opening statement excerpt from hearing.
APF slide:
“…The clinical diagnosis is made for the purpose of treating an individual patient and should consider the (m)any details associated with that patient’s illness.
Surveillance case definitions are created for the purpose of standardization, not patient care.
They exist so that health officials can reasonably compare the number and distribution of cases over space and time.
Whereas physicians appropriately err on the side of over-diagnosis, thereby assuring they don’t miss a case, surveillance case definitions appropriately err on the side of specificity, thereby assuring they do not inadvertently capture illnesses due to other conditions…”
---Dr. Paul Mead, Epidemiologist, Vector-borne Infectious Diseases, National Center for Infectious Diseases at the CDC and Prevention
APF slide:
“…The CDC recommend(s) that the diagnosis of LD should instead be left to tests approved by the FDA…”
Excerpt from a letter to the Office of Management and Budget, urging the FA to discount CLIA certification practices and “over-regulate” more accurate LD tests.
These senators focused on the “public need” for increased lab test regulation and were unusually specific: they referenced superior (publicly available) media enrichment techniques for Lyme diagnosis developed by MacDonald, Sapi et al, now used by Advanced Labs.
These more precise diagnostic tests are now deemed “the enemy of the state,” but are welcomed by an informed but unfortunately, increasingly ill public.
-–Petition signed by senators Markey, Blumenthal, Warren, Brown and Durbin; on 7/4/14.
APF slide:
“Paul Mead, MD in 2004: “…The clinical diagnosis is made for the purpose of treating an individual patient and should consider the (m)any details associated with that patient’s illness.
Surveillance case definitions are created for the purpose of standardization, not patient care…”
APF slide:
“…’FDA-approved, two-tier testing is inaccurate and was intended by the CDC and Prevention to be used for surveillance purposes, not diagnostics.’”
-–Excerpted Op Ed Letter, Richard Longland, Wall Street Journal in 2014
“…Although this idea has been repeated many times in many settings, it is incorrect and potentially harmful to patients.
The two-step testing process recommended by the CDC is accurate and was developed specifically to aid in diagnosing patients suspected of having Lyme Disease…”
-–Excerpted reply by Dr. Paul Mead, CDC, Wall Street Journal in 2014.
APF slide:
CDC Lyme Test is the One You Want to Use – The two-step testing process recommended by CDC is accurate and was developed specifically to aid in diagnosing patients suspected of having LD.
In an Aug 14 letter regarding lab tests for LD (“Leave Well Enough Alone on Lyme”) Richard Longland states that FDAA-approved, two-tier testing is inaccurate and was intended by the CDC and Prevention to be used for surveillance purposes, not diagnostics.
Although this idea has been reported many times in many settings, it is incorrect and potentially harmful to patients.
The two-step testing process recommended by CDC is accurate and was developed specifically to aid in diagnosing patients suspected of having LD.
Although some labs sell tests they claim are better, too often there is no objective evidence to support these claims.
Patients deserve the best medical care possible.
This means accurate testing and safe and effective treatment based on the best scientific evidence.
--Paul Mead, M.D., MPH, CDC and Prevention, Division of Vector-borne Diseases, Fort Collins, CO
APF slide:
The CDC has changed their already indefensible position on LD testing and has contradicted public statements (not to be confused with sworn testimonies);
The two-step test the CDC endorses only tests for one strain of Borrelia, though 37+ strains cause disease…only one strain of Borrelia testing is “FDA-approved” – the B31 strain.
Even then, sensitivity and specificity of this limited test is dubious;
More than 20 types of rashes, not just the bulls-eye EM are documented and are not included in physician training.
APF slide:
The “genome” of the germ Borrelia helps it adapt, change forms, invade blood cells, complicate blood testing and make it a dangerous target for a vaccine (again);
the media enrichment for Borrelia growth (growing the bugs that cause LD) has been approved, published publicly and commercialized for better diagnostics;
More than 300,000 LD patients go undiagnosed, ea year, for some inexplicable reason by the CDC and the epidemic continues on the CDC’s watch.
APF slide:
Learn more! Search the internet, online databases and other resources to learn more about
how the 1994 Conference in Dearborn influenced, corrupted and compromised the accuracy of Lyme Disease testing: Suggested search strings to learn more:
Dearborn 1994 two-tiered testing;
Dearborn conference 1994 Lyme disease;
Serological diagnosis Lyme disease Dearborn 1994; L
ymerix vaccine Dearborn
APF slide:
Skin Rashes – more than 20 different rash types have tested positive for Borrelia infections – why hasn’t the CDC been training doctors about
this well-documented pathology?
Many people don’t even preset with the rashes…
Here are just a few photos – all of these tested positive.
APF slide:
graphic shows the likely increase in LD cases projected out to 2025 (didn't indicate the basis for these numbers):
2016 653,350
2017 701,883
2018 754,021
2019 810,032
2020 870,203
2021 934,844
2022 1,004,287
2023 1,078,889
2024 1,159,032
2025 1,245,128
TOTAL 16,682,138
APF slide:
Annual LD cases 1990-2025 “In 2025, over 1.2 million new cases projected in that year alone…based on growth rate not averaging!
APF slide:
Clinical Studies and Meta Analysis Reveal:
• The CDC has changed their position on LD testing and has contradicted their public statements (not to be confused with sworn testimonials);
• More than 20 types of rashes, not just the bulls-eye EM exist and have been discarded from physician training;
• The two-step testing the CDC endorses only tests for one strain of Borrelia, though 37+ strains cause disease…one strain of testing is “FDA-approved” – the B31 strain. Even then, sensitivity and specificity is dubious, as noted by myriad studies, both government ad commercial;
• More than 300,000 LD patients go undiagnosed each year from so inexplicable reason by the CDC and the epidemic continues on the CDC’s watch;
• The media enrichment for Borrelia growth (growing the bugs that cause LD) has been improved, published and commercialized for better diagnosis;
• The “genome” of the germ Borrelia helps it change forms, invade blood cells, complicate blood testing and make it a nearly impossible and dangerous target for a vaccine
-p