Science and Technology news... :: View topic

RMAgricola · Guest

GO away !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lisam01502 · Guest

To all who have been campaigning for the return of my children,removed by UK
social services under allegations of Munchausens-by-proxy against me following
the negative result on their Lyme blood tests at Southampton laboratory

I have been instructed by the Family Court to tell you not to write abusive
letters to Social Worker Elizabeth Johnson and her manager Anne McKenzie, who
are based at the London Borough of Harrow Social Services Department, 429-433
Pinner Road, Harrow,Middlesex.
Thank you.
Lisa Masterson

Kathleen · Guest

lisam01502@aol.com (Lisam01502) wrote in message news:<20031003170034.17326.00000368@mb-m16.aol.com>...
[quote]To all who have been campaigning for the return of my children,removed by UK
social services under allegations of Munchausens-by-proxy against me following
the negative result on their Lyme blood tests at Southampton laboratory

I have been instructed by the Family Court to tell you not to write abusive
letters to Social Worker Elizabeth Johnson and her manager Anne McKenzie, who
are based at the London Borough of Harrow Social Services Department, 429-433
Pinner Road, Harrow,Middlesex.
Thank you.
Lisa Masterson
[/quote]
ABUSIVE?

We might hurt their feelings?

PLEEEASE Lisa, they always try that crap.
They tried it with me:>
http://www.actionlyme.com/CHRO_WALLACE.htm

The poor little "social" "workers"

They don>t mention what your stolen kids are going
through. Making my point that this is NOT about
child welfare, this DCF business.

I THINK the opposite of what these Social
Workers want, is going to happen, In fact, I
hammered them, before October 2, 2003,
Eastern Standard Time, around 1 or 2 PM

Thanks for giving us their names.
http://www.actionlyme.com/SCIENCE_AND_LAW_PARLIAMENT_USDOJ.htm

LORD HOWE
"The danger of such a broad spectrum of behaviour being packaged into
a single portmanteau term, MSBP, is that in the hands of those who are
not sufficiently trained or experienced to know better, it is a label
that is all too easily applied without due care. This is all the more
true when one considers the so-called profile of characteristics that
are said to mark "

I am writing to expand on those issues, which are correctly assessed
by youà It is a problem of the ***incompetence of these Social
Workers****, but also, the broad profile of MBPS happens to fit the
profile of mothers who have some education and the ability to detect
Malpractice. Hence, this MBPS accusation is a shield against the
incompetence of the physician and protection against malpractice
lawsuit....

And Lenny Sigal:

4) [SPIN] The same thing that happened to Mrs. Masterson and the rest
of us, who, with this chronic infection of the brain, Borreliosis à
We were told we were CRAZY to say we have such a disease!

Guess who ran a vaccine trial, as the Principal Administrator, and two
years later reported that he in fact could not actually read his
vaccine trial results?

9673299 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] RESULTS: The efficacy of the
vaccine was 68 percent in the first year of the study in the entire
population and 92 percent in the second year among the 3745 subjects
who received the third injection. The vaccine was well tolerated.
There was a higher incidence of mild, self-limited local and systemic
reactions in the vaccine group, but only during the seven days after
vaccination. There was no significant increase in the frequency of
arthritis or neurologic events in vaccine recipients. CONCLUSIONS: In
this study, OspA vaccine was safe and effective in the prevention of
Lyme disease. PMID: The manufacturer of the only currently
FDA-approved (and released) recombinant OspA Lyme disease vaccine has
suggested that vaccination does not interfere with serological
evaluation of Lyme disease in vaccine recipientsa statement that is
not supported by the data presented here.

10913394 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] The manufacturer of the only
currently FDA-approved (and released) recombinant OspA Lyme disease
vaccine has suggested that vaccination does not interfere with
serological evaluation of Lyme disease in vaccine recipientsa
statement that is not supported by the data presented here.

THIS GUY DID:

Rahn and Evans' "Lyme disease", ACP Key Diseases Series, 1998,
Leonard Sigal writes:
"With widespread anxiety about Lyme disease has come Munchausen>s
Syndrome and Munchausen>s by proxy syndrome in those concerned about
"chronic" Lyme disease."-- page 149

I included that specifically in the RICO complaint. I apologize for
not having that textbook here to copy the actual published pages,
because the USDOJ attorney has it. ......

Sarge · Guest

"draco9" <ogmfipptpn-hrzx@eoag.net> wrote in
news:blskuh$o0o$1@ultra60.mat.uni.torun.pl:

[quote]--laftknashi
--buykgvprkacrohf
Microsoft User

this is the latest version of security update, the
"October 2003, Cumulative Patch" update which resolves
all known security vulnerabilities affecting
MS Internet Explorer, MS Outlook and MS Outlook Express
as well as three new vulnerabilities.
Install now to continue keeping your computer secure
from these vulnerabilities.
This update includes the functionality of all previously released
patches.

System requirements: Windows 95/98/Me/2000/NT/XP
This update applies to:
- MS Internet Explorer, version 4.01 and later
- MS Outlook, version 8.00 and later
- MS Outlook Express, version 4.01 and later

Recommendation: Customers should install the patch at the earliest
opportunity. How to install: Run attached file. Choose Yes on
displayed dialog box. How to use: You don>t need to do anything after
installing this item.

Microsoft Product Support Services and Knowledge Base articles can be
found on the Microsoft Technical Support web site.
http://support.microsoft.com/

For security-related information about Microsoft products, please
visit the Microsoft Security Advisor web site
http://www.microsoft.com/security/

Thank you for using Microsoft products.

[/quote]
Just in case there is anyone that might think about using the above links
and information ---- DO NOT !!!

To update MS products go their website. MS does not send updates &
patches to individuals. The above stuff has really caused people some
problems.

Sarge

--
If it walks like a duck ...... well you know the rest ....

Peter de Vroomen · Guest

[quote]To update MS products go their website. MS does not send updates &
patches to individuals. The above stuff has really caused people some
problems.
[/quote]
Yeah, you must be a total dickhole if you think that Microsoft would contact
anyone personally without using a lawyer.

PeterV

Shirley Thebaglady · Guest

I have a young friend (45) who had it for 2 years in his system. Had
very expensive shots to cure it. That was 2 years ago.

Now his daughter has it. She is allergic to meds that will cure,
control?? it. She had to drop out of college. It has not been decided
what Meds that can be substituted. They do not how long it has been in
her body.

Mort Zuckerman · Guest

On Jun 30, 3:40 pm, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 30, 1:49 pm, Mort Zuckerman <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

It is a conflict of interest because this is Mortimer Zuckerman>s rag,
and Zuckerman...

A WHAT? A 'conflict of interest'?

LOL. Ever hear of the 1st Amendment? You sure "bias" isn>t the word
you>re looking for, there, intrepid crimebuster?

I think it is a 'conflict of interest' for you to discussing
psychiatry all the time...since you are such an obvious wingnut
whackjob.

Rita and Pam write books...you burn them.
[/quote]
Like usual, you have nothing to add.
Like usual, you fail to see how ridiculous that makes you appear.
You>re a very, predictable foul thing, like an alimentary, um,
exercise.
http://www.actionlyme.org

the 3rd Man · Guest

On Jun 30, 5:22 pm, Mort Zuckerman <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 30, 3:40 pm, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Like usual, you have nothing to add.
Like usual, you fail to see how ridiculous that makes you appear.
You>re a very, predictable foul thing, like an alimentary, um,
exercise.http://www.actionlyme.org-
[/quote]

Well, what on EARTH is your problem (obsession) with Zuckerman?

What in the hell does he have to do with anything (other than he>s
Jewish, I guess...and you>ve made it abundantly, nauseatingly clear
how you feel about that)...and he was going to attend an ALDF thing
once?

What>s the problem?

(He asks, foolishly...knowing, at the same time, that he should
probably not)...

Mort Zuckerman · Guest

On Jun 30, 6:35 pm, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 30, 5:22 pm, Mort Zuckerman <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 30, 3:40 pm, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Like usual, you have nothing to add.
Like usual, you fail to see how ridiculous that makes you appear.
You>re a very, predictable foul thing, like an alimentary, um,
exercise.http://www.actionlyme.org-

Well, what on EARTH is your problem (obsession) with Zuckerman?

What in the hell does he have to do with anything (other than he>s
Jewish, I guess...and you>ve made it abundantly, nauseatingly clear
how you feel about that)...and he was going to attend an ALDF thing
once?

What>s the problem?

(He asks, foolishly...knowing, at the same time, that he should
probably not)...
[/quote]
I guess you didn>t read it or else didn>t understand
the post.

You should read the part about lawyers being stupid
and that if there was a pre-natal test for lying-lawyerness
it should be available - according to Dr. Watson - to
mothers who would choose an abortion, since
what>s the point of bringing evil cowards like yourself
into the world?

http://www.actionlyme.org

the 3rd Man · Guest

On Jun 30, 6:39 pm, Mort Zuckerman <morph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Jun 30, 6:35 pm, the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

I guess you didn>t read it or else didn>t understand
the post.
[/quote]
True.

Both.

Tempo · Guest

I recommend that you consult a good dictionary and review the
definitions of the word "know."

Again, members of the IDSA>s 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease guideline
panels have publically stated, in both research articles and patents,
that chronic Lyme exists. This assertion is buttressed by many other
studies that indicate that Lyme borreliosis can persist in both humans
and animals despite antibiotic treatment.

The IDSA should, in my opinion, explain in detail why its guidelines
assert that chronic Lyme does not exist in patients who are treated
with antibiotics. This assertion directly contradicts the published
statements of a number of the IDSA>s Lyme disease guideline committee
members.

Moreover, the IDSA has failed to prove, in even a simple way, that its
recommended treatment guidelines "cure" Lyme disease.

As for the IDSA>s denial of "symptomatic" Lyme disease following
treatment, I think that is a pile of rubbish. Steere et al. published
studies that described patients who had Lyme disease, were refractory
to antibiotic treatment, and subsequently died. At least one of the
patients had spirochetes in her brain at autopsy.

Doctors from the ILADS camp have publically described similar findings.
For example, one woman was treated for years with both oral and IV
antibiotics, and when her symptoms persisted, her CSF was sent to the
CDC for analysis. Her CSF was culture positive for Bb. To borrow a
phrase from Gary Wormser, it is "highly implausible" that she was
reinfected: she was wheelchair bound in her house and she had no pets.

In another case, at autopsy, spirochetes were found in the brain of a
man with chronic Lyme neuroborreliosis who>d had long-term treatment
with ceftriaxone and oral antibiotics.

These last two cases are described in "The Treatment of Chronic and
Neurological Lyme Disease," available from lymediseasevideos.com.

As for the cited Dattwyler patent, I cannot definitively say who
"authored" the patent. Dattwyler is listed as the inventor in the
USPTO>s database. Although attorneys help file patent applications, it
strains credulity to believe that lawyers--including those with science
backgrounds--would have the degree of technical sophistication to write
the cited patent filing entirely without assistance from Dattwyler.

Moreover, since Dattwyler has two other patents in the USPTO database
with similar language about chronic Lyme despite treatment with
antibiotics, I find it highly implausible that he is unaware of his
patents' statements about chronic Lyme. My understanding from
attorneys is that applicants need to be careful about language in
patents, since deliberating making false or misleading statements to
the federal government can be a felony offense.

Connecticut>s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, declared in May
2008 that some key members of the IDSA>s 2006 Lyme disease guidelines
committee failed to disclose some significant conflicts of interest.
The guidelines did mention, however, that Gary Wormser and Allen Steere
had received consulting fees from Baxter.

Ironically, Baxter>s Web site contradicts the IDSA>s assertion that
symptomatic, persisting Lyme borreliosis does not exist following
antibiotic treatment. Below is an excerpt, cited under the Fair Use
doctrine. Note the last sentence:

"Lyme borreliosis is a tick-transmitted, bacterial infection caused by
spirochetes belonging to the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato group.
This infection is the most common tick-borne disease in Europe and the
United States, afflicting tens of thousands of individuals each year.
After an initial infection, which is localized to the site of the tick
bite, and commonly characterized by the formation of an expanding red
rash (erythema migrans), the bacteria may spread to other sites in the
body. Secondary sites of infection may include the nervous system,
joints and heart and may lead to severe neurological complications,
chronic arthritis and potentially life threatening perturbations to
heart function. Effective disease prevention is critical, since
antibiotic therapy is not always effective and symptoms may persist
after treatment." http://www.baxtervaccines.com/?node_id=373

the 3rd Man · Guest

On Jul 1, 3:09 pm, Tempo <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

[quote]I recommend that you consult a good dictionary and review the
definitions of the word "know."
[/quote]
I know what "know" means...but I>m not sure that you know what "know"
means... or that you know that I know what "know" means. You know?
[quote]
Again, members of the IDSA>s 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease guideline
panels have publically stated, in both research articles and patents,
that chronic Lyme exists. This assertion is buttressed by many other
studies that indicate that Lyme borreliosis can persist in both humans
and animals despite antibiotic treatment.
[/quote]
Nonsense.

They have often noted the continuation of symptoms, and even the
survivability of some spirochetes after treatment.

But neither of these equates with an admission of the existence of
'chronic Lyme'.

Why are you wasting our time with this? If what you are saying is
true, we can all go home, now...and you should intuitively realize
that this certainly cannot be the case. If what you say is
true...there would be no controversy, at all.
[quote]
The IDSA should, in my opinion, explain in detail why its guidelines
assert that chronic Lyme does not exist in patients who are treated
with antibiotics. This assertion directly contradicts the published
statements of a number of the IDSA>s Lyme disease guideline committee
members.
[/quote]
Because they don>t belive that "chronic Lyme" exists. They do,
however, admit the continuation of symptoms...but don>t believe those
symptoms are driven by "chronic Lyme".

Perhaps you would be so kind as to point out, specifically, where IDSA
panel members admitted that "chronic Lyme" exists?
[quote]
Moreover, the IDSA has failed to prove, in even a simple way, that its
recommended treatment guidelines "cure" Lyme disease.
[/quote]
Were they supposed to?

[quote]As for the cited Dattwyler patent, I cannot definitively say who
"authored" the patent.
[/quote]
Well, we can say that the document you cited was from the USTPO, can>t
we? Doesn>t that mean the USTPO is technically the "author"?

Dattwyler is listed as the inventor in the
[quote]USPTO>s database. Although attorneys help file patent applications, it
strains credulity to believe that lawyers--including those with science
backgrounds--would have the degree of technical sophistication to write
the cited patent filing entirely without assistance from Dattwyler.
[/quote]
LOL. No, it doesn>t "strain credulity" at all. You see, patent
attorneys are also members of a separate patent bar...they generally
have advanced technical backgrounds...engineering and science, even
bio-tech and medicine. Bioengineered stuff is really "hot" within this
field. Has been for awhile. (Geeks and nerds of the most incredible
sort. Just loads of fun at parties. Trust me. I know).

Nope. Not buying that, either.

And the point is...you really don>t know...and assumed. You really
can>t make that leap, I>m afraid. And this was the USTPO>s language,
not Dattwyler>s, apparently.

[quote]
Connecticut>s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, declared in May
2008 that some key members of the IDSA>s 2006 Lyme disease guidelines
committee failed to disclose some significant conflicts of interest.
The guidelines did mention, however, that Gary Wormser and Allen Steere
had received consulting fees from Baxter.
[/quote]
Look...what Blumenthal said in a press conference means absolutely
NOTHING in context...and he later went on to say that (whatever these
perceived conflicts were--he failed to elaborate)...that they were
"institutional" and not "individual". Whatever that means.

No one knows what he meant...and in my opinion, that was an absolutely
irresponsible and outrageous abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Suppose Blumenthal holds a press conference tomorrow and says that
"Tempo" has been investigated...numerous ethical breaches found...but
we>re not going to specify what they were.

Under those circumstances, you can>t even respond...because you don>t
even know what he>s talking about. No one has any idea of the
magnitude of these "conflicts" or really, whether they ever even
existed.

Horrible, isn>t it? Isn>t that just the worst kind of demagoguery?
Smear tactics? Bad, if a private person did it...but totally
irresponsible, in my opinion, for a public official to do this.

[quote]
Ironically, Baxter>s Web site contradicts the IDSA>s assertion that
symptomatic, persisting Lyme borreliosis does not exist following
antibiotic treatment. Below is an excerpt, cited under the Fair Use
doctrine. Note the last sentence:
[/quote]
NONSENSE.

What it says is that SYMPTOMS persist.

("Effective disease prevention is critical, since
antibiotic therapy is not always effective and symptoms may persist
after treatment").

Apparently, you are having difficulty keeping the notion of
continuing SYMPTOMS separate from the idea of continuing INFECTION.

You see...it is theoretically POSSIBLE to have continuing SYMPTOMS
without continuing INFECTION.

The source of continuing symptoms is currently UNKNOWN in previously
treated Lyme patients.

It is still an unproven assumption that these lingering symptoms are
driven by continuing or relapsing infection.

Tempo · Guest

I recommend that you consult a good dictionary and review the
definitions of the word "know."

Again, members of the IDSA>s 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease guideline
panels have publically stated, in both research articles and patents,
that chronic Lyme exists. This assertion is buttressed by many other
studies that indicate that Lyme borreliosis can persist in both humans
and animals despite antibiotic treatment.

The IDSA should, in my opinion, explain in detail why its guidelines
assert that chronic Lyme does not exist in patients who are treated
with antibiotics. This assertion directly contradicts the published
statements of a number of the IDSA>s Lyme disease guideline committee
members.

Moreover, the IDSA has failed to prove, in even a simple way, that its
recommended treatment guidelines "cure" Lyme disease.

As for the IDSA>s denial of "symptomatic" Lyme disease following
treatment, I think that is a pile of rubbish. Steere et al. published
studies that described patients who had Lyme disease, were refractory
to antibiotic treatment, and subsequently died. At least one of the
patients had spirochetes in her brain at autopsy.

Doctors from the ILADS camp have publically described similar findings.
For example, one woman was treated for years with both oral and IV
antibiotics, and when her symptoms persisted, her CSF was sent to the
CDC for analysis. Her CSF was culture positive for Bb. To borrow a
phrase from Gary Wormser, it is "highly implausible" that she was
reinfected: she was wheelchair bound in her house and she had no pets.

In another case, at autopsy, spirochetes were found in the brain of a
man with chronic Lyme neuroborreliosis who>d had long-term treatment
with ceftriaxone and oral antibiotics.

These last two cases are described in "The Treatment of Chronic and
Neurological Lyme Disease," available from lymediseasevideos.com.

As for the cited Dattwyler patent, I cannot definitively say who
"authored" the patent. Dattwyler is listed as the inventor in the
USPTO>s database. Although attorneys help file patent applications, it
strains credulity to believe that lawyers--including those with science
backgrounds--would have the degree of technical sophistication to write
the cited patent filing entirely without assistance from Dattwyler.

Moreover, since Dattwyler has two other patents in the USPTO database
with similar language about chronic Lyme despite treatment with
antibiotics, I find it highly implausible that he is unaware of his
patents' statements about chronic Lyme. My understanding from
attorneys is that applicants need to be careful about language in
patents, since deliberately making false or misleading statements to
the federal government can be a felony offense.

Connecticut>s Attorney General, Richard Blumenthal, declared in May
2008 that some key members of the IDSA>s 2006 Lyme disease guidelines
committee failed to disclose some significant conflicts of interest.
The guidelines did mention, however, that Gary Wormser and Allen Steere
had received consulting fees from Baxter.

Ironically, Baxter>s Web site contradicts the IDSA>s assertion that
symptomatic, persisting Lyme borreliosis does not exist following
antibiotic treatment. Below is an excerpt, cited under the Fair Use
doctrine. Note the last sentence:

"Lyme borreliosis is a tick-transmitted, bacterial infection caused by
spirochetes belonging to the Borrelia burgdorferi sensu lato group.
This infection is the most common tick-borne disease in Europe and the
United States, afflicting tens of thousands of individuals each year.
After an initial infection, which is localized to the site of the tick
bite, and commonly characterized by the formation of an expanding red
rash (erythema migrans), the bacteria may spread to other sites in the
body. Secondary sites of infection may include the nervous system,
joints and heart and may lead to severe neurological complications,
chronic arthritis and potentially life threatening perturbations to
heart function. Effective disease prevention is critical, since
antibiotic therapy is not always effective and symptoms may persist
after treatment." http://www.baxtervaccines.com/?node_id=373

Tempo · Guest

In article <eefe3004-4ba2-40b8-81cb-
c46d9becb8a4@y38g2000hsy.googlegroups.com>
the 3rd Man <derdrittemann2003@yahoo.com> wrote:

[quote]They have often noted the continuation of symptoms, and even the
survivability of some spirochetes after treatment.

But neither of these equates with an admission of the existence of
'chronic Lyme'.

Why are you wasting our time with this? If what you are saying is
true, we can all go home, now...and you should intuitively realize
that this certainly cannot be the case. If what you say is
true...there would be no controversy, at all.
[/quote]
You appear to be unfamiliar with the research articles, or confused, or
both. Members of the IDSA guideline committee did more than just
mention continuation of symptoms, or the survivability of spirochetes
after antibiotic treatment. They actually described "chronic Lyme
disease" and persisting Bb infection following antibiotic treatment in
some of their research studies.

Look, for example, at footnote 30 in my original post, which references
Dattwyler>s NEJM article about seronegative Lyme disease.

Read the article.

As for wasting people>s time, you>re entitled to your opinion. Given
your long history of antagonism toward people on this forum, I don>t
think many people give much weight to your opinion, frankly.

The REAL questions and controversies are:

1) Why did the IDSA>s LD committee members fail to disclose all of
their potential conflicts of interest?
2) Why did they rely on less than 5% of the extant LD studies in
reaching their conclusions?
3) Why did they deny the existence of chronic Lyme disease following
antibiotic treatment, when there is considerable research--including
research from some of the committee members--that indicates otherwise?
4) Why did they suggest that Lyme tests are accurate, when there is
voluminous information, including studies from researchers at NIH and
Johns Hopkins, indicating that they are not?
5) Why did they deny the intracellularity of Borrelia burgdorferi, when
there is persuasive video and scientific research that Bb can exist
intracellularly? Even Willy Burgdorfer has said that Bb can be
intracellular.
6) Why did they deny that Bb can develop antibiotic resistance, when
there are multiple studies indicating otherwise?

There are other questions and controversies, of course, but these are
some of the main ones.

[quote]Because they don>t belive that "chronic Lyme" exists. They do,
however, admit the continuation of symptoms...but don>t believe those
symptoms are driven by "chronic Lyme".
[/quote]
If they don>t believe that chronic Lyme exists, then why did they
describe the existence of chronic Lyme disease--including seronegative,
chronic Lyme disease--following antibiotic treatment, in some of their
research studies and patents?

[quote]Were they supposed to?
[/quote]
They are not obligated to prove that treatment according to their
guidelines "cures" Lyme. However, in the absence of such proof--even a
very simple proof--their denial of the existence of chronic Lyme
disease following antibiotic treatment is not persuasive, IMO.

[quote]Well, we can say that the document you cited was from the USTPO, can>t
we? Doesn>t that mean the USTPO is technically the "author"?
[/quote]
The USPTO processes applications and serves as a repository of patents.
The primary intellectual content of the patent filings is created by
the inventors and by their attorneys.

I can see it coming...for your next act, you>re going to assert that
all books within libraries are actually authored by librarians. Just
kidding. LOL.

[quote]LOL. No, it doesn>t "strain credulity" at all. You see, patent
attorneys are also members of a separate patent bar...they generally
have advanced technical backgrounds...engineering and science, even
bio-tech and medicine. Bioengineered stuff is really "hot" within this
field. Has been for awhile. (Geeks and nerds of the most incredible
sort. Just loads of fun at parties. Trust me. I know).

Nope. Not buying that, either.

And the point is...you really don>t know...and assumed. You really
can>t make that leap, I>m afraid. And this was the USTPO>s language,
not Dattwyler>s, apparently.
[/quote]
Pot, meet Kettle.

You don>t know that it wasn>t Dattwyler>s language. You>ve made an
assumption.

For the sake of argument, let>s assume that Dattwyler has some genius
attorneys working for him. They still would need to communicate and
collaborate with him, in order to ascertain what his inventions and
patent filings are about, how they differ from other patents and
intellectual property, what is claimed and not claimed, and so on.
They couldn>t just create the patent filings out of whole cloth.

Moreover, as I indicated in my last post, attorneys have told me that
inventors have a strong incentive to review the claims made in their
patent filings, because deliberately making false and/or misleading
statements to the federal government can be a felony offense.

I think it is very improbable that lawyers wrote three patents in which
Dattwyler is listed as the inventor, entirely without assistance from
him. Even if one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that
Dattwyler was not involved in writing any of his patents, it would be
highly implausible that he would be completely unaware of the
assertions about chronic Lyme following antibiotic treatment.

Put another way, the joint probability that Dattwyler would be listed
as the inventor of three separate patents AND have no role in writing
any of the patents AND have zero awareness of the assertions made in
each patent about chronic Lyme and persisting infection despite
antibiotic treatment, is exceedingly small.

If someone doesn>t believe that, I have a bridge to sell them in
Brooklyn.

[quote]Look...what Blumenthal said in a press conference means absolutely
NOTHING in context...and he later went on to say that (whatever these
perceived conflicts were--he failed to elaborate)...that they were
"institutional" and not "individual". Whatever that means.

No one knows what he meant...and in my opinion, that was an absolutely
irresponsible and outrageous abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Suppose Blumenthal holds a press conference tomorrow and says that
"Tempo" has been investigated...numerous ethical breaches found...but
we>re not going to specify what they were.

Under those circumstances, you can>t even respond...because you don>t
even know what he>s talking about. No one has any idea of the
magnitude of these "conflicts" or really, whether they ever even
existed.

Horrible, isn>t it? Isn>t that just the worst kind of demagoguery?
Smear tactics? Bad, if a private person did it...but totally
irresponsible, in my opinion, for a public official to do this.
[/quote]
At various times, Connecticut>s AG has mentioned both individual and
institutional conflicts of interest.

I don>t think Blumenthal>s stance was irresponsible. I know some
unreported details of his investigation; the conflicts of interest of
some members of the IDSA>s 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease guideline
committees were serious. Blumenthal might have found even more serious
conflicts of interest if the panelists had not refused to comply with
subpoenas.

For all you know, Blumenthal may have chosen not to publically disclose
the specific individuals involved per agreement with the IDSA. Perhaps
he independently decided to avoid publically embarrassing specific
members of the 2000 and/or 2006 committees? You don>t know, and
neither do I.

[quote]NONSENSE.

What it says is that SYMPTOMS persist.

("Effective disease prevention is critical, since
antibiotic therapy is not always effective and symptoms may persist
after treatment").

Apparently, you are having difficulty keeping the notion of
continuing SYMPTOMS separate from the idea of continuing INFECTION.

You see...it is theoretically POSSIBLE to have continuing SYMPTOMS
without continuing INFECTION.

The source of continuing symptoms is currently UNKNOWN in previously
treated Lyme patients.

It is still an unproven assumption that these lingering symptoms are
driven by continuing or relapsing infection.
[/quote]
I can assure you that I am not having problems keeping the notion of
continuing symptoms separate from the idea of continuing infection.

I agree with you that it is theoretically possible to have continuing
symptoms without continuing infection.

I disagree with your blanket statement that the "source" of continuing
symptoms is unknown in previously treated Lyme patients. In some
cases, the source(s) is indeed unknown, but in some other cases, Bb has
been detected by culture, PCR, or both, from treated Lyme patients, and
the patients have responded positively to additional antibiotic
treatment(s).

While it has not been proven that lingering symptoms are due to
continuing or relapsing infection, there is considerable and growing
evidence that persisting infection may be a significant factor in many
cases.

It is also true that it has not been proven that lingering symptoms are
NOT due to continuing or relapsing infection.

Do the above statements necessarily mean that all persisting infections
are Bb-related? No. Ticks can carry Babesia, Bartonella, Ehrlichia,
Rickettsia, and Mycoplasma, among other pathogens.

Reread the Baxter sentence in question: "Effective disease prevention
is critical, since antibiotic therapy is not always effective and
symptoms may persist after treatment."

In your focus on symptoms, you neglected to address the part of the
sentence about antibiotics. If antibiotic therapy is "not always
effective," and symptoms persist, there are some possible reasons why:

1) The antibiotic therapy failed to eradicate the Bb infection
2) The antibiotic therapy eradicated the Bb infection, but the symptoms
persist for some other reason, such as an inflammatory response, a
coinfection, or both
3) The patient never had a Bb infection in the first place
4) Some other reason(s)

In its 2006 Lyme disease guidelines, the IDSA denied the existence of
symptomatic, chronic Bb infection following antibiotic treatment.

Therefore, the IDSA>s position conflicts with the statement on Baxter>s
Web site, insofar as the IDSA denies the possibility of persisting
symptoms due to persisting Bb infection after antibiotic therapy.

the 3rd Man · Guest

On Jul 2, 3:30 pm, Tempo <nob...@pseudo.borked.net> wrote:

[quote]
You appear to be unfamiliar with the research articles, or confused, or
both. Members of the IDSA guideline committee did more than just
mention continuation of symptoms, or the survivability of spirochetes
after antibiotic treatment. They actually described "chronic Lyme
disease" and persisting Bb infection following antibiotic treatment in
some of their research studies.
[/quote]
Yes, well, in that case...it shouldn>t be too hard for you to retrieve
some examples of this for us. Show us where they say, in plain
English...we think that the symptoms of "post-Lyme syndrome" are
really due to "chronic Lyme". Come ON...

Please. For godssakes...they even have a different word for it that is
supposed to distinguish it from "chronic Lyme".

And, please, try to bear in mind that people are entitled to change
their minds...so we are looking for recent statements, please.

And YOU said it...don>t tell me to read the hundred or so articles you
cited.
[quote]
Look, for example, at footnote 30 in my original post, which references
Dattwyler>s NEJM article about seronegative Lyme disease.

Read the article.
[/quote]
No thanks.

Do you really, seriously, think that you can play scientific sleuth
like this online in public documents? Do you really think that "they"
are so incredibly stupid as to contradict themselves the way you
suggest, publicly? It>s absurd.

[quote]As for wasting people>s time, you>re entitled to your opinion. Given
your long history of antagonism toward people on this forum, I don>t
think many people give much weight to your opinion, frankly.
[/quote]
Well, that>s nice, anyway. I suppose that was an ill-considered remark
on my part...sorry...but it "strains credulity" to think that you can
just rummage through publicly available documents and "trip them up"
the way you seem to think.

See, YOU don>t know what they "know" until "they" say so. And their
public statements, reflected in the IDSA Guidelines and
elsewhere...directly contradict your assertions. Are you serious?
Where have you been?

You are trying to put words in their mouths...and I regard it as a
complete waste of time and energy. What>s the goal here? So you can
say, 'gotcha'? This really doesn>t work that way in real life.

And it>s somewhat naive and silly, also.

So far as my "history of antagonism" on this forum goes...I have said
this many times...simple rule: I respond in the manner that I have
been addressed...and don>t suffer fools lightly. When fired upon...I
fire right back...and will NOT turn the other cheek.

Fact is, not many on the 'activist' slant of things seem to have
anything approaching an ability to discuss rationally and peacefully.
Search the archives here...I have been called every name in the book
simply for disagreeing...including "murdering scum".

More than a few in online Lymeland are a couple of fries short of a
Happy Meal...playing solitaire with a deck of 51...couple of bricks
short of a load...one oar in the water...and just plain out to lunch.
On a permanent basis.
[quote]
The REAL questions and controversies are:

1) Why did the IDSA>s LD committee members fail to disclose all of
their potential conflicts of interest?
[/quote]
Did they? Who says? Blumenthal in that situation was a legal
adversarial party. His out-of-court statements have no legal meaning.

I honestly have NO way of knowing whether they did...or didn>t. You
don>t believe whatever a prosecutor says, do you? We have courts and
juries for that sort of thing, you know.

You should NOT regard them as being necessarily true. You cannot
accept those as meaning anything other than that was his opinion.
Unfortunately, he apparently did not feel strongly enough about the
merits of that opinion to take it to court and litigate it further.

NO charges were filed as a result of the so-called "antitrust
investigation"...which appears, in my opinion, to have been a
deliberate ruse...an excuse...a shameful pretense to search the
records of a private party at the political instigation of a
politically-connected "friend".

[quote]
Well, we can say that the document you cited was from the USPTO, can>t
we? Doesn>t that mean the USPTO is technically the "author"?

The USPTO processes applications and serves as a repository of patents.
The primary intellectual content of the patent filings is created by
the inventors and by their attorneys.
[/quote]
LOL. I think I know what the USPTO does. (more or less).
[quote]
I can see it coming...for your next act, you>re going to assert that
all books within libraries are actually authored by librarians. Just
kidding. LOL.
[/quote]
No. The patent is issued by the examiner. What you cited appears to be
the patent grant, itself. This would be a document issued by the
USPTO. That would make them the "author". Not Dattwyler.

Understand what I am saying? The quote appears to be from the patent
examiner...not Dattwyler...or his attorneys.

[quote]
Pot, meet Kettle.
[/quote]
Huh?
[quote]
You don>t know that it wasn>t Dattwyler>s language. You>ve made an
assumption.

For the sake of argument, let>s assume that Dattwyler has some genius
attorneys working for him.
[/quote]
Well, that>s usually the case, yes...but you are ASSUMING, again.

They still would need to communicate and
[quote]collaborate with him, in order to ascertain what his inventions and
patent filings are about, how they differ from other patents and
intellectual property, what is claimed and not claimed, and so on.
They couldn>t just create the patent filings out of whole cloth.
[/quote]
That>s true...a more than fair inference. That>s pretty much the way
it works.
[quote]
Moreover, as I indicated in my last post, attorneys have told me that
inventors have a strong incentive to review the claims made in their
patent filings, because deliberately making false and/or misleading
statements to the federal government can be a felony offense.
[/quote]
Well, yes, see...you would want the person filing the application to
review it normally before filing it, yes. But you don>t KNOW that
happened...and you, therefore, cannot fairly ASSUME those were HIS
words. You see? Did the patent examiner quote from the application? Or
come up with this on his own? You don>t know.

(I do not think, however, that it is a felony to make false or
misleading statements in this context, however).

(BTW...I am an attorney).

[quote]
I think it is very improbable that lawyers wrote three patents in which
Dattwyler is listed as the inventor, entirely without assistance from
him. Even if one were to assume, for the sake of argument, that
Dattwyler was not involved in writing any of his patents, it would be
highly implausible that he would be completely unaware of the
assertions about chronic Lyme following antibiotic treatment.
[/quote]
Well...problem here is that you are ASSUMING and inferring...and
whether it is a logical inference or not...YOU do NOT know. (Attroneys
do NOT write patents. They write patent applications). Understand?

And it is your burden of proof...you are the one making the
affirmative statements, here.

You really cannot make these types of inferences about what others do
or do not know based upon what you read online. You have to ask them.
(ideally, under oath).

People change their minds. Grammatical errors and misinterpretations
come into play.

And...whatever was said and done back in...whenever...you cannot hold
these up as contradictions or prior inconsistent statements,
necessarily. (You can ask them about them, yes).

They can simply and easily be dismissed with "I have changed my mind".
People do that, you know.

[quote]Look...what Blumenthal said in a press conference means absolutely
NOTHING in context...and he later went on to say that (whatever these
perceived conflicts were--he failed to elaborate)...that they were
"institutional" and not "individual". Whatever that means.

No one knows what he meant...and in my opinion, that was an absolutely
irresponsible and outrageous abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

Suppose Blumenthal holds a press conference tomorrow and says that
"Tempo" has been investigated...numerous ethical breaches found...but
we>re not going to specify what they were.

Under those circumstances, you can>t even respond...because you don>t
even know what he>s talking about. No one has any idea of the
magnitude of these "conflicts" or really, whether they ever even
existed.

Horrible, isn>t it? Isn>t that just the worst kind of demagoguery?
Smear tactics? Bad, if a private person did it...but totally
irresponsible, in my opinion, for a public official to do this.

At various times, Connecticut>s AG has mentioned both individual and
institutional conflicts of interest.

I don>t think Blumenthal>s stance was irresponsible. I know some
unreported details of his investigation; the conflicts of interest of
some members of the IDSA>s 2000 and 2006 Lyme disease guideline
committees were serious.
[/quote]
YOU WHAT? You know "unreported details"? From WHOM?

Care to explain THAT? HOW do you know some of the details? You are
saying that Blumenthal>s office leaked details of a private civil
investigation to interested third parties? Tsk, tsk, tsk. That>s not
nice. Sounds like you ar esaying that the Conn AG was acting like a
private counsel on behalf of one citizen against another.

Maybe it>s time to call for an investigation of the investigation.

You>d better explain that one.

Blumenthal might have found even more serious
[quote]conflicts of interest if the panelists had not refused to comply with
subpoenas.
[/quote]
As I understand it...compliance on the part of the IDSA was voluntary.
They did NOT concede even his legal authority to issue the subpoenas,
as I recall.

So far as I can see, the individuals were under NO obligation to
comply...and I sure as hell wouldn>t submit to a search of my personal
effects under the absurd pretense of an "antitrust investigation".
Nonsensical fishing expedition, in my opinion...and a waste of
taxpayer resources...an improper misuse of the prosecutorial power to
further the private political agenda of a political 'pal'.

Disgusting and disgraceful. The LDA and CALDA should be absolutely
ashamed. (But probably aren>t).

And you shouldn>t speculate about what he might have found. Makes you
sound somewhat biased and judgmental.

And...you forgot to answer how you would feel if Blumenthal announced
to the world that YOU had been found to have "conflicts of
interest"...but refused to specify what they were. Would you mind?
Think about it. Try and answer.

But surely, you must understand that if he doesn>t announce the
details of the charges...then no one should give them any weight
whatever. They don>t exist. And he, therefore, should have remained
silent.

Not the way we do things in this country, hopefully.
[quote]
For all you know, Blumenthal may have chosen not to publically disclose
the specific individuals involved per agreement with the IDSA. Perhaps
he independently decided to avoid publically embarrassing specific
members of the 2000 and/or 2006 committees? You don>t know, and
neither do I.
[/quote]
Well, the point is...that unless the details are brought forth...they
don>t exist...and it is not proper or appropriate to infer that there
were any such 'conflicts' in the absence of specific details.
Understand? It>s called "fundamental fairness". Due process. We>re not
supposed to go around accusing people of ethical misconduct without
providing details.

Ask yourself this question...(for the sake of perspective)...if
Blumenthal investigates ILADS for "conflicts of interest" in the
formulation of their "guidelines"...and $25,000 or more annually in
revenues from Lyme-related practice is regarded as a "conflict"...how
many ILADS members do you think would have a "conflict"?

What was that you said about "pot and kettle"?

It>s a JOKE, isn>t it? ILADS and Igenex and the LDA complaining about
"conflicts"?

[quote]
I can assure you that I am not having problems keeping the notion of
continuing symptoms separate from the idea of continuing infection.
[/quote]
Yes, you can assure me, but the fact that you quoted the satement
(below) as support for this, doesn>t help convince me.

[quote]Reread the Baxter sentence in question: "Effective disease prevention
is critical, since antibiotic therapy is not always effective and
symptoms may persist after treatment."
[/quote]
S-Y-M-P-T-O-M-S.

NOT "infection".


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Medicine - Lyme Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... , 10, 11, 12 Next
Page 11 of 12