If Gary Wormser says
that chronic, neurologic Lyme doesn't exist, then OspA didn't cause it.
But of course there is no denying Pam3Cys is the inducer of the Great
Imitators, now. See
Fungal-Viral Synergy
is Chronic Lyme & LYMErix Disease
This is the basis of their harassment of Lyme victims.
Gary Wormser reporting the blunting of the immune response in vaccinated
animals:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10865170
"OspA interferes with the response of lymphocytes
to proliferative stimuli including a blocking of cell cycle phase
progression."
Of course, that's
▲ LYMErix Disease. The downstream
results of what OspA does to the immune system.
Given that LYMErix lawsuits are ongoing as of 2006, this is
an important factor.
Lyme vaccine victim Fichter sues Gary Wormser, NYMC/Westchester, and
Connaught for $1.2B for vaccine adverse effects.
Lyme vaccine victim Schettini sues for $22M.
Named in suit:
Gary Wormser
Robert Nadelman
Arthur Weinstein
Cynthia Aranell
Full patient names:
Marvin Fichter, Yorktown Heights, NY
Settled out of court for undisclosed sum around 2002.
Alison Schettini, Cortlandt Manor, NY
Albert Gambino, Southbury, CT
Source: Newsday, June 15, 1997
Patient sues SmithKline Beecham for $105M for vaccine adverse effects
(Steere lead investigator) Ray Neville, dentist from Poughkeepsie.
Source: Newsday, June 15, 1997

1 of 1 DOCUMENT
Janice L. Vesperman,
Respondent, v. Gary P. Wormser et al.,
Respondents,
and Connaught Laboratories, Inc., Appellant.
1999-09073, 2000-03135
SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND
DEPARTMENT
283
A.D.2d 637; 725 N.Y.S.2d 361; 2001 N.Y. App. Div.
LEXIS 5488
November 2, 2000, Argued
May 29, 2001, Decided
PRIOR HISTORY: [***1]
In an action to recover damages for products liability and medical
malpractice, the defendant Connaught Laboratories, Inc., appeals, as limited by
its brief, from so much of (1) an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester
County
(Donovan, J.), entered August 24, 1999, as denied its motion for summary
judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against it and to preclude
the plaintiff from introducing at trial certain expert testimony, and (2)
an
order of the same court entered February 24, 2000, as, upon renewal, adhered to
so much of the determination in the order entered August 24, 1999, as denied
that branch of its prior motion which was to preclude certain testimony of the
plaintiff's expert witness.
CASE SUMMARY:
PROCEDURAL POSTURE: In action to recover damages for products liability and
medical malpractice, defendant laboratory appealed order of Supreme Court,
Westchester County (New York), which denied its motion for summary judgment and
its motion to preclude plaintiff from introducing certain expert
testimony, and an order which adhered to so much of the prior order as denied a
motion to preclude certain testimony of plaintiff's expert witness.
OVERVIEW: Plaintiff's decedent volunteered to participate in an
investigational study of an experimental vaccine for Lyme disease sponsored by
defendant laboratory. Decedent had a prior history of Lyme disease. Shortly
after his second injection, decedent experienced several adverse effects,
including joint pain and scalp tenderness. The trial court properly denied
defendant laboratory's
motion for summary judgment as plaintiff raised issues of fact regarding the
adequacy of the warnings provided by defendant laboratory to the defendant
doctor, the principal investigator of the study. In addition, there were issues
of fact regarding defendant laboratory's vicarious liability for the acts and/or
omissions of other defendants.
OUTCOME: The appeals were dismissed. The first order was affirmed insofar as
reviewed.