Blowing the Whistle at the FDA, Jan 2001, exposing Dearborn and how OspA causes immunosuppression rather than, "was a vaccine."
 


01 Oct 2017

Home


File List, RICO

1988 Steere says Lyme is like a B cell leukemia

Assoc Blogs-n-Webs:
TruthCures.org
badlymeattitude.com/
immune2lies.com/
researchfraud.com/
may12.org
meadvocacy.org/
truthbetoldx81
lymecryme
CrymeDiseaseNorway
crymedisease
theothersideofthestretcher
rjspiritualityandtuth
LymeTruthSite

JC-LilnkedIn
KD-Linkedin.com
LD-LinkedIn
JC-academia.edu

KD-academia.edu

 


CDC "SPIDER"

Fungal Exosomes Inhibit Apoptosis

IDSA: "Vaccines serve the mfgs, not their victims"

RICO_filed_USDOJ

BlumenthalAntiTrust Lawsuit

Exosomes, Blebs

Spirochetal_Dementia


PDFs
CDC Admits Fraud, 2016
Dattwyler, 1988
Golightly, 1988
Dressler, 1994
BarbourFish, 1993
Dearborn, 1994
BarbourFishpdf.pdf
 

Pathogenic Fungi

Bush's warcrimes, Oct 2000

Trainer

170708

 

 

MEDICAL-LEGAL NOTICE:

I will repost this information.  It keeps coming up in the Lyme community.

Who can you sue for damages?

If you have been misdiagnosed due to the Dearborn standard in the last 2 years you can sue Yale.  Yale owns the only scientifically valid (according to the FDA's rules on the validation of a bioanalytical method, and according to Alan Barbour and Yale themselves, re specificity) antibody method to diagnose Lyme, but they did not deploy that method to validate their other patented product, LYMErix.  Yale staff/owners of the Flagellin did not refute the falsified Dearborn case definition when they knew it was false because they intended a monopoly on the nations' blood supply post-LYMErix, in cahoots with Imugen and Corixa.  (See L2 Diagnostics being funded by the Yale Endowment Fund, making that fund liable for damages attack by Lyme and LYMErix victims.)

TECHNICAL BASIS FOR SUING OVER LYME MISDIAGNOSIS DUE TO NEGATIVE ELISA OR WHEN A PHYSICIAN USES THE DEARBORN CASE DEFINITION; THIS IS CDC OFFICER PAUL MEAD MAKING IT CLEAR THAT A POSITIVE TEST IS NOT A DEFINING DEFINITION OR "STANDARD OF CARE" - YOU CAN SUE FOR MALPRACTICE AND NEGLIGENCE:

"Lyme Disease Case Definition and Clinical Diagnoses"

"A clinical diagnosis is made for the purpose of treating an individual patient and should consider the many 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 that they do not inadvertently capture illnesses due to other conditions."
http://www.hhs.gov/asl/testify/t040129.html

TECHNICALITIES RELATED TO MEAD'S STATEMENT:

This statement by CDC's Paul Mead is not entirely correct in that the SPECIFIC flagellin method alone (see CRYMEDISEASE_CHP1.htm) or each antibody band being as accurate for diagnosis as its assigned percent specificity (like, OspA is 100% specific to Lyme, therefore if you have band 31 alone, you can be 100% sure you have Lyme) is the correct FDA usage of the term "Specificity."  The Dearborn method does not increase specificity, rather, it narrows the disease definition to the HLA-linked hypersensitivity response as discussed by CDC staff in their 1992 European patents with SmithKline.  In other words, the fraudulent, Dearborn case definition only detects Lyme arthritis, and Lyme arthritis alone was okay for the CDC in terms of surveillance.  CDC does not care if the Dearborn case definition only detects 15% of all cases.  They then can extrapolate 15% accuracy of Dearborn times 10-12 times underreported (see Yale's Robert Schoen in 1998 giving the FDA those statistics) to the actual number of Lyme cases per year.  In other words, multiply the reported number of cases times 73 (100/15 = 6.67 and 11 times underreported).

Mead says the case definition increases the specificity, but it does not because A) Lyme and LYMErix are immunosuppressive - don't tend to produce antibodies (compare with Tuberculosis and TB vaccines outcomes)-, and B) narrowing the disease definition to only the HLA-linked cases is not the correct usage of the FDA's terms, especially specificity.  Each analyte (each antibody band) has its own specificity.  One does not multiply specificities.  Note that Yale said their ONE band, 31, was 100% specific for Lyme prevention (LYMErix).  If it is specific enough to prevent Lyme, it is specific enough to detect Lyme.

If you wanted to detect a case of Lyme, we know that nearly all Lyme infected people will produce band 41 (flagellin).  Therefore, if you wanted to detect Lyme, you would try to make that band even more specific, or not cross react or detect flagellins from other organisms.  Yale solved this problem in 1991 and patented it.  Other people/researchers pursued the same approach and came to the same conclusion.  It is logical.

 

 

Yale is furious because they did not win their monopoly on the national blood supply and national testing for all vector borne diseases as well as human-bioweapons susceptibilities [which at the time they thought was due to HLA differences, but later we learn it was more due to TLRs and the sequence in which a person acquired their various infections or exposures (vaccines included)] because ActionLyme in 1999 led a national campaign to get adverse events reported to the FDA through the VAERS, upon the recommendation of the Lyme Disease Foundation (Hartford, CT) and Dennis Parenti (SmithKline, Phila, PA) in a telephone conversation with yours truly after we learned LYMErix victims has the same "multisystem disease" outcomes as Lyme victims.

A year later, the FDA granted us a hearing (Jan 31, 2001) and the FDA heard what Yale, Corixa and Imugen already knew, since they discussed it in their 1995 RICO patent, 6, 045, 804.

"Additional uncertainty may arise if the vaccines are not completely protective; vaccinated patients with multisystem complaints characteristic of later presentations of Lyme disease may be difficult to distinguish from patients with vaccine failure."

"The present invention provides a method useful to detect a B. burgdorferi infection in a subject. The method provided by the invention is particularly useful to discriminate B. burgdorferi infection from OspA vaccination, although it is sufficiently sensitive and specific to use in any general Lyme disease screening or diagnostic application. Thus, the method of the invention is particularly appropriate for large scale screening or diagnostic applications where only part of the subject population has been vaccinated or where the vaccination status of the population is unknown. "
 

We have other reasons to believe Yale knew LYMErix made people sick, not to mention learning directly from the LYMErix victims.  Yale's Robert Schoen gave instructions to blow off people who had the expected "multisystem" LYMErix adverse events in a 1998 book where he also instructs people to send the blood to his own little RICO lab with Corixa and Imugen (mo OspA or B in the standard, like the Dearborn case definition, as if they were made for each other, which they were).


In a lawsuit against Yale, you will only need two witnesses:  Someone from the FDA's bioanalytics division, and either Erol  Fikrig or Richard Flavell, because those 2 have their names on both the Flagellin antibody method that detects 94.4% of all Lyme cases with 100% specificity, and they also own the patent for LYMErix.  The LYMErix patent was filed after the Flagellin patent, so they, Yale, knew how to diagnose Lyme but did not use this valid method to qualify LYMErix.
 

If you are being newly introduced to this crime, it's quite fascinating.  Far better than any crime show you could watch on TV.  One of the Lyme criminals recently sued the FBI.  We don't know why exactly, but I would guess it had something to do with Edward McSweegan taking himself on a junket to an Israeli bioweapons facility (look for that link on this homepage).

This is in addition to all the now-criminal stalking and harassing Lyme victims, myself, included, because my kids have one of the best verified cases of congenital Lyme in the country.  Not to mention the fact that I am an analytical chemist and would know about things like valid analytical methods.

And so of course I blew the whistle on the entire crime - from Dearborn being scientifically false (invalid) to the LYMErix results being falsified to OspA being immunosuppressive - to the FDA Vaccine Committee at that 2001 Meeting.

The CDC has said numerous times and in numerous places that the Dearborn 'case definition" is for surveillance (tracking Lyme's spread across the country) and not for diagnosis.  This is how you sue.  If someone said you should have a Lyme test and they went straight for an ELISA, you have a malpractice/negligence case.  You can sue whoever misdiagnosed you and you can sue Yale for the same.

http://www.medicalmalpractice.com/resources/medical-malpractice/medical-malpractice-introduction/medical-negligence.htm

Causation: The Link Between Negligence and Injury. The final step in establishing a medical malpractice claim from an act of medical negligence requires establishing a causal relationship between the negligent medical treatment and the injury to the patient. This is a legal concept known as causation, and is another very difficult aspect to prove in a medical malpractice case.

Establishing causation in a medical malpractice suit, similar to establishing negligence, requires a medical expert witness to show if and how the negligent medical treatment directly caused an injury to the patient. Further, it must be shown that, had the negligence not taken place, the injury would have been avoided.

 

The experts you will use to establish injury and negligence will be the FDA employee and either Fikrig or Flavell.  They all will be forced to say that the Flagellin method is valid, and that the Dearborn Method was not.

At one time, the "L2 Diagnostics" Lab at Yale was called the "Lyme and Lupus Clinic" (two-Ls).  Nowadays, Yale does not say that Lyme causes a Lupus outcome, because that would contradict their later, Dearborn lie that Lyme is only an HLA-linked arthritis or hypersensitivity response to OspA, the vaccine.

If you think all of this makes no sense, you would be right.  It's total craziness but not one MD in America can detect this craziness, because they're all crazy too, if they believe the convoluted bullshit coming out of the now-totally defunded Yale and UConn U's.
 

Oh, and if you are bored with all the other the cartoon antics of the US Government, you might find it interesting and a distraction to know that the German scientist Roland Martin, recruited to head the NIH's MS Group because he found an association between Lyme and MS, went back home to Germany once he found out that Lyme and LYMErix cause the reactivation of Epstein-Barr (and similars) especially in the brain, but that that disease will produce no antibodies (and therefore can't be called MS- MS being known to be associated with reactivated Epstein-Barr, as is Lupus).
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16783164

In other words, LYMErix caused MS and Lupus, too, (with or without the HLA, the non-HLA linked cases now being called "paraneoplastic neurological diseases").  And guess who specializes in ONLY Epstein-Barr and Lyme?
 

I, personally find all the antics of the US Government cartoonish, but as I said, this question of recovering damages keeps coming up in the Lyme community.  Yes you can sue.  It's very, very easy to make a case and it will only take two witnesses for you to win.  There is absolutely no way for Yale staff to weasel out of it.

Whatever data you can find to link the Yale Endowment Fund to Yale's biotech spinoffs would be good.  Helpful.  Oh, and try not to be in Connecticut when you sue.  No set of government employees is better-versed in retaliation.  CT lost all its manufacturing jobs long ago so the CT Staties are Transformer-Vultures on steroids and nuclear-fueled.  They're so afraid of having to perform real work for a living....

They WILL kill you.  And worse.  They'll take your children away and give them people known to be physically and sexually violent.

You be careful.  They don't grow 'em any stupider than in Connecticut.  The New Haven FBI even told me they don't know where or how to hire a chemist to advise them on the FDA's rules on the validation of an analytical method.

They said they don't know any chemists and don't know how to find one.

And you just can't make this shtuff up.

 

Oh, and the dude who manages Yale's Endowment Fund has cancer.  I wonder what he thinks of having funded his own outcome?  Boomerang does not rhyme with Lyme but it should.

 

 

120914- Kathleen M. Dickson
Former Pfizer Analytical Methods Development and Validation Chemist,
STAD Group, Building 257, Groton, CT, USA
BS Chemistry, 1981, Southern CT State University.