Sikand says at the 1998 FDA meeting that "late Lyme was harder to diagnose and treat."

Jeepers, we thought there was no such thing as Chronic Lyme?

Sikand Blew off Lewis Bull

[RTF]
click here

File Format: Rich Text Format - View as HTML
Dr. Robert Schoen 32. Dr. Vijay Sikand 38. Dr. Yves Lobet 48. Dr. Allen Steere 67. Dr. Dennis Parenti 79. Dr. Robert Pietrusko 122. FDA Presentation ...
www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/AC/98/transcpt/3422t1.rtf - Similar pages

Ol' Vijay tawkin 'bout how serious Lyme disease is at the 1998 FDA meeting about LYMErix. Later these crooks all claim Lyme is imaginary:

"It is well known that Borrelia burgdorferi indeed after asymptomatic infection can lurk or secrete itself in certain areas of the body, perhaps the central nervous system or perhaps the joint spaces, only to reappear months or maybe years later in the form of late stages of illness which are harder to diagnosis and treat.

"It is probably worth noting, since I have learned a lot, that we don't have the clinical luxury in private practice that we had in the SmithKline Beecham trial in which we had baseline sera on all the patients who enrolled so that when they presented with symptoms, we could draw acute and convalescent serologies so as to compare them with each other and with baseline to better understand what symptoms they are presenting with.

Finally, there are indeed many dilemmas in therapy. In particular, untreated or inadequately treated Lyme disease may lead to the chronic morbidity with which we are very familiar. Most commonly arthritis and the not common but complex neurological syndromes are what often result and which confront the primary care physician in the office diagnostically and therapeutically.

These particular outcomes result in much more intensive, long-term expensive therapy, often in the form of long-term intravenous antibiotics.  These are the patients who often are refractory to treatment.  Indeed, these are the patients in whom symptoms seem to persist despite what we have given in terms of adequate antibiotic therapy by any known measure.

In conclusion, we need a vaccine for Lyme disease because it is increasing in incidence and geographic spread.  We need a vaccine for Lyme disease because there are problems in clinical diagnosis, its

laboratory evaluation, and its treatment.  We need a vaccine for Lyme disease because preventive measures are unfortunately ineffective.  Lyme disease is indeed vaccine preventable.  Availability of this vaccine would lead to a significant reduction in chronic sequelae and substantive morbidity.  Lyme vaccine is thus a critical new public health approach to the primary prevention of Lyme disease in the United States.  Thank you very much."--
  Vijay Sikand, EAST LYME, CT

-----