The Honorable Edward Kennedy United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America regarding the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act of 2007 (S.1708). IDSA supports efforts to prevent Lyme disease, including efforts to educate the public and medical community about best practices in this area. However, the Society must oppose passage of the bill in its current form.
IDSA and its membership of more than 8,000 infectious diseases physicians and scientists are sympathetic to the plight of individuals who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases. Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed composition of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme disease to federal decision-makers.
IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the treatment of infectious diseases (ID) in the United States. First and foremost, IDSA's goal is to ensure the best quality in patient care and to protect the public's health and safety. To this end, we believe it is critically important that the bill's sponsors and those Members of Congress who are considering sponsorship be fully apprised of the widespread consensus within the medical and scientific community about the appropriate treatment of Lyme disease, as well as the medical community's concerns about unproven, potentially harmful treatments for so-called ``chronic'' Lyme disease that are advocated by a small, but vocal, group of physicians and their patients. A recent review (N Engl J Med 357:14; October 4, 2007), published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which gave an evidence-based assessment of chronic Lyme diagnoses and the recommended treatments, substantiates our concerns.
A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described inaccurately as ``chronic Lyme disease''. Lyme disease is a tick-transmitted infection that can cause symptoms such as muscle and joint pain, fevers, chills, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or memory loss. Some patients may continue to experience these non-specific symptoms even after a course of antibiotic therapy has killed the Lyme disease bacterium. A small group of physicians have diagnosed such patients as having ``chronic'' Lyme disease. Many of these so called ``chronic'' Lyme diagnoses have been based on laboratory tests that are neither evidence-based nor approved by the Food and Drug and Administration.
Even more troubling, physicians that diagnose ``chronic'' Lyme disease often advocate treating patients with repeated or prolonged courses of oral or intravenous antibiotics that have no proven value other than an anti-inflammatory response in some individuals. The unnecessary use of antibiotics may cause harmful adverse events in these patients as well as spur the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria--adding to an existing public health crisis. Such diagnoses and treatments are not supported by IDSA's clinical practice guidelines (last revised in 2006), nor are they supported by new Lyme disease guidelines published by the American Academy of Neurology (revised in 2007), nor by publications from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Institutes of Health, the American College of Physicians, and the American Academy of Pediatrics, nor by the vast majority of experts in the field of infectious diseases medicine in this country and abroad.
The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed to chronic Lyme disease. Not only is this assertion microbiologically implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that support the existence of chronic Lyme disease. The New England Journal of Medicine article stated unequivocally ``that there is little or no benefit associated with additional antibiotic treatment for patients who have long-standing subjective symptoms after appropriate initial treatment for a properly diagnosed episode of Lyme disease.''
As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct a review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods, particularly addressing diagnostic standards, the adequacy of current treatment guidelines, treatment options for post-Lyme disease disorder, effectiveness of current prevention methods, and the controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease. If at the end of its review, the IOM deems a federal advisory committee to be beneficial to federal decision-making, IOM should set clear and specific mandates and objectives for the committee, as well as make recommendations for the composition of the committee that will assure impartial and scientifically sound deliberations.
For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the vast majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for IDSA (www.idsociety.org), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov), the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lyme Disease), the American Academy of Neurology (www.aan.com), or the American College of Physicians (www.acponline.org).
I thank you for taking the time to understand our concerns on this legislation. If you have any questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Michael Ochs, IDSA Government Relations Associate. Mr. Ochs may be reached at (703) 740-4790 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Donald M. Poretz President
-------------------- Positive 10 bands WB IGG & IGM + Babesia + Bartonolla and NOW RMSF 3/5/09 all at Quest
posted
ok, we have to do something to counter this. I called the office of the 6 California congressment as requested in another thread, but we all need to contact Senator Kennedy and let him know that IDSA isn't the last/only word in Lyme disease.
IDSA's opposition to this bill is frightening. We can't let them succeed.
Posts: 975 | From California | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged |
Tracy9
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7521
posted
Terrifying...
They neglect to mention they are being investigated by the CT Attorney General.
They neglect to mention that all the guidelines they refer to from the many different allegedly prestigious and mainstream organizations are written by and staffed by the same handful of doctors.
ILADS has a posted presentation by Dr Stephen Phillips that counters everything they say here.
13 years Lyme & Co.; Small Fiber Neuropathy; Myasthenia Gravis, Adrenal Insufficiency. On chemo for 2 1/2 years as experimental treatment for MG. Posts: 4480 | From Northeastern Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Tracy9
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7521
posted
Lyme Disease Physicians and Patients Expose Research Group's Ploy to Silence Them
Already caught up in an anti-trust investigation, IDSA opposes research bill in order to maintain monopoly over Lyme diagnosis and treatment options
Washington, DC - Physicians specializing in treating chronic Lyme disease and a national coalition of Lyme disease patients and their families today accused a medical research group of trying to exercise monopoly control over research on Lyme and tick-borne diseases.
"We're very disappointed," said Pat Smith, president of the national Lyme Disease Association (LDA), responding to a letter to Congress by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) that seeks to deny patients a voice regarding the research needed to better understand the disease.
Lyme disease is a serious bacterial infection that develops from the bite of an infected tick. The disease is often misdiagnosed or goes untreated, causing many patients to suffer persistent health problems, including neurological disorders, crippling muscle and joint pain, disabling fatigue, psychological disorders, and even death. Even when Lyme disease is caught early and treated with a short course of antibiotics, the debilitating symptoms can persist and require additional longer-term treatment.
In March, IDSA wrote Congress attacking the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education and Research Act of 2007, introduced by Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Bart Stupak (D-MI) in the House, and Christopher Dodd (D-CT), Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Chuck Hagel (R-NE) in the Senate. The broadly supported bipartisan bill calls for acceleration of Lyme disease research and creates a new federal advisory committee made up of the full range of scientific viewpoints on Lyme, including a seat for patient advocacy groups.
The IDSA is currently under investigation by the Connecticut Attorney General for abuse of monopoly power and exclusionary conduct in formulating its Lyme disease guidelines, which were developed by a panel that held significant commercial interests in diagnostic tests, vaccines, and consulting arrangements. In its letter to Congress opposing the Lyme Bill, the IDSA failed to mention this ongoing investigation.
IDSA researchers have virtually controlled Lyme disease research for the past 30 years amidst ongoing controversy surrounding its guidelines, which deny patients the right to treatment options and undermine the ability of physicians to use their clinical discretion in treating patients. IDSA provides private health insurance companies with the basis for denying long-term treatment for chronic Lyme disease.
The California Lyme Disease Association (CALDA), national Lyme Disease Association (LDA) and Time for Lyme (TFL) are non-profit organizations that were founded by individuals who had personal experience with Lyme disease, in order to address the lack of research, education and support services available for this newly emerging infection.
If the IDSA gets its way, this bill will die without ever having a public hearing. If you don't want that to happen, here's what to do:
Right now, the bill is stalled in two Congressional subcommittees (one in House, one in the Senate.) If the committee chairmen do not release the measures for a vote, the Lyme bills will die. We would then have to wait until next year to start the process all over again.
Click here for a list of states with members on the committees:
http://www.lymediseaseassociation.org/HR741/HR741.html#Actions If your state is listed, click for contact information. Urge your representatives to contact their committee chairmen and request a hearing for the Lyme disease bill. (S 1708/HR 741) If it is a senator on your list, have him/her contact Senator Edward Kennedy (MA), chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pension Committee. If it is a member of the House, have him/her contact Congressman Frank Pallone (NJ), chairman of the Energy and Commerce Health Subcommittee.
Phone your representatives in their DC offices during regular business hours. It's quick and easy. The staff will tally all calls they receive.
If your state is not listed, see "other actions needed by individuals" at the above link.
13 years Lyme & Co.; Small Fiber Neuropathy; Myasthenia Gravis, Adrenal Insufficiency. On chemo for 2 1/2 years as experimental treatment for MG. Posts: 4480 | From Northeastern Connecticut | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
is this the same IDSA who, when first being investigated by blumenthol, said that their guidelines were only their opinion and that they couldn't help it if doctors looked up to them as authority?
Posts: 615 | From maryland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
blake, thanks so much for posting this; i tried this afternoon with no success in getting my pc to cooperate on block/copy! xox
breaking up solid block text into shorter paragraphs for NEURO LYMIES LIKE ME who can't read longer paragraphs as is! Bettyg ****************************
quote:Originally posted by hcconn22:
Here's the IDSA letter:
March 21, 2008
The Honorable Edward Kennedy United States Senate Washington, DC 20510
Dear Senator Kennedy:
I write on behalf of the Infectious Diseases Society of America regarding the Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act of 2007 (S.1708).
IDSA supports efforts to prevent Lyme disease, including efforts to educate the public and medical community about best practices in this area.
However, the Society must oppose passage of the bill in its current form.
IDSA and its membership of more than 8,000 infectious diseases physicians and scientists are sympathetic to the plight of individuals who seek treatment for Lyme and other tick-borne diseases.
Unfortunately, we have serious concerns about the proposed composition of the federal advisory committee the bill would establish as it likely will promote non-scientifically-based advice about Lyme disease to federal decision-makers.
IDSA is widely recognized as the pre-eminent authority on the treatment of infectious diseases (ID) in the United States.
First and foremost, IDSA's goal is to ensure the best quality in patient care and to protect the public's health and safety.
To this end, we believe it is critically important that the bill's sponsors and those Members of Congress who are considering sponsorship be fully apprised of the widespread consensus within the medical and scientific community about
** the appropriate treatment of Lyme disease,
** as well as the medical community's concerns about unproven, potentially harmful treatments for so-called ``chronic'' Lyme disease that are advocated by a small, but vocal, group of physicians and their patients. **************************************
A recent review (N Engl J Med 357:14; October 4, 2007), published in the New England Journal of Medicine, which gave an evidence-based assessment of chronic Lyme diagnoses and the recommended treatments, substantiates our concerns.
A fundamental problem with S.1708, as drafted, is the bill's repeated references, overt and implied, to a condition that has been described inaccurately as ``chronic Lyme disease''. ----------------------------------------
Lyme disease is a tick-transmitted infection that can cause symptoms such as muscle and joint pain, fevers, chills, fatigue, and difficulties with concentration or memory loss.
Some patients may continue to experience these non-specific symptoms even after a course of antibiotic therapy has killed the Lyme disease bacterium.
A small group of physicians have diagnosed such patients as having ``chronic'' Lyme disease.
Many of these so called ``chronic'' Lyme diagnoses have been based on laboratory tests that are neither evidence-based nor approved by the Food and Drug and Administration.
Even more troubling, physicians that diagnose ``chronic'' Lyme disease often advocate treating patients with repeated or prolonged courses of oral or intravenous antibiotics that have no proven value other than an anti-inflammatory response in some individuals.
The unnecessary use of antibiotics may cause harmful adverse events in these patients as well as spur the development of antimicrobial resistant bacteria--adding to an existing public health crisis.
Such diagnoses and treatments are not supported
* by IDSA's clinical practice guidelines (last revised in 2006),
* nor are they supported by new Lyme disease guidelines published by the American Academy of Neurology (revised in 2007),
* nor by publications from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
* the National Institutes of Health,
* the American College of Physicians,
* and the American Academy of Pediatrics,
* nor by the vast majority of experts in the field of infectious diseases medicine in this country and abroad. **************************************
The premise for prolonged antibiotic therapy for Lyme disease is the notion that some spirochetes can persist despite conventional treatment courses, thereby giving rise to the vague symptoms ascribed to chronic Lyme disease.
Not only is this assertion microbiologically implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data that support the existence of chronic Lyme disease.
The New England Journal of Medicine article stated unequivocally ``that there is little or no benefit associated with additional antibiotic treatment for patients who have long-standing subjective symptoms after appropriate initial treatment for a properly diagnosed episode of Lyme disease.''
As a substitute to the establishment of a new federal advisory committee that is slanted toward individuals with an unorthodox and potentially dangerous viewpoint, IDSA proposes requesting the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies to conduct
* a review of Lyme disease diagnosis, treatment and prevention methods,
* particularly addressing diagnostic standards,
* the adequacy of current treatment guidelines,
* treatment options for post-Lyme disease disorder, --------------------------------
* effectiveness of current prevention methods,
* and the controversies associated with chronic Lyme disease.
If at the end of its review, the IOM deems a federal advisory committee to be beneficial to federal decision-making, IOM should set clear and specific mandates and objectives for the committee, as well as make recommendations for the composition of the committee that will assure impartial and scientifically sound deliberations.****************************** ****************
For more information on Lyme disease and the recommendations by the vast majority of experts in the field, please visit websites for
IDSA (www.idsociety.org),
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (www.cdc.gov),
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (www3.niaid.nih.gov/topics/lyme Disease),
the American Academy of Neurology (www.aan.com),
or the American College of Physicians (www.acponline.org).
I thank you for taking the time to understand our concerns on this legislation.
If you have any questions or need any further information, please feel free to contact Michael Ochs, IDSA Government Relations Associate.
Mr. Ochs may be reached at (703) 740-4790 or via e-mail at [email protected].
Sincerely,
Donald M. Poretz President
really stinks doesn't it? HOG WASH AT ITS BEST!
IP: Logged |
lou4656
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 10300
posted
Composing my letter to state representatives. Up for others who have not see this.
Please write to Congressmen and Senators.
-------------------- LouLou Posts: 1276 | From maryland | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Can the powers to be add this to hot topics at the top permenetly, as this is VERY important to all concerned. Doc
Posts: 95 | From nys | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
Make a call or send a couple of emails. There are examples in the links that were provided above that you just have to add your name to so there is no reason everyone can't easily do this in 5 minutes....
Posts: 561 | From mass | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting how in the IDSA's statement on their web site in the same paragraph they state something to the effect of "Insurance companies use our treatment guidelines to determine coverage", and then later something to the effect of "The IDSA has no relationship with insurance companies." Um. Sure, I guess you could make the argument that there is no de jure arrangement, but obviously there is a de facto one, and trying to draw the kind of distinction they're trying to is an extreme exercise in hair splitting.
I also like their section where they state that they hope "that IDSA volunteers who serve on committees not be harassed, and not be hurt financially." A fine piece of straw man arguing - make the people who are challenging their monopoly on guidelines seem to be some organization of sociopaths bent on vindictiveness.
Posts: 32 | From Massachusetts | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
i sent loub a reply to something else, and asked that he post this link and jim wilson's canadian reply to IDSA letter too ... BOTH as features OR IN SAME POST!
i said someone asked for this, but i didn't have the link handy so that wasn't given to lou.
to whoever, please copy the link at top and send a pm to lou b; you can do this by being on 1st page of medical.
go to top left corner, click on his name, and you'll get his profile; send PM is in right top corner...thanks for mentioning this IMPORTANT tip!
IP: Logged |
I know in New York we had a lot of calls go to the legislators on the committees that have the bill, but when we called back a week later and asked if they had actually spoken to the chairmen, the aides were evasive. So I think we have to really make it clear when we call that we really need them to talk to the chairman of the committee.
I know all this stuff is very, very confusing, and it took me a while to figure out what was going on. So if anybody has questions about what to do and that's holding them up, please writer your questions here and some of us who have been working on this will answer. Ellen
--------------------
Posts: 819 | From New York, NY | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes - I have a question - should we be calling the chairpeople directly who will be responsible for moving the bill to a hearing? I went ahead and called Pallone's office(for the House bill) and talked with the aide for a while about my experience with Lyme and why I think this bill is urgently needed. He took down my name and address and thanked me for calling.
Posts: 13116 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
up for ellen to answer robin's note below hers ...*********************************
should we be calling DIRECTLY CHAIRS OF HOUSE/REPS over committees?
IP: Logged |
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
Edit Note -- I'm breaking this up per-request so it's easier to read than the actual letter itself as well as double spacing each paragraph. A copy of the actual letter can be attained by messaging me.
Senator Kerry and Senator Kennedy have both dealt with me in the past. I've written them in a similar issue regarding the 2006 guidelines. I wanted to share my letter with all of you. Critique it if you wish, use it if you wish, do whatever you want. I'll be sending an editted copy shortly to all of my representatives in Massachusetts.
The Honorable Edward Kennedy U.S. Senate
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I am writing to you again for the second time in regards to Lyme and Tick-borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act of 2007 as well as the ongoing conflicts with the Infectious Disease Society of America (IDSA). I wrote you by mail including a cover sheet on "The Complexity Of Lyme Disease" and Attorney General Blumenthal's investigation into the conflict of interest between IDSA treatment guidelines for Lyme disease and insurance companies on November 12, 2006. I'm grateful for your support then, and I'm asking for your support once again.
I ask you to schedule S 1708 (Dodd/Schumer/Hagel) for a hearing in the HELP committee immediately. ``The Lyme and Tick-Borne Disease Prevention, Education, and Research Act of 2007,'' which has House (HR 741 Smith/Stupak) version, is a critical piece of legislation that will benefit Massachusetts residents and the entire nation. Massachusetts is a highly endemic state where diseases carried by ticks are prolificating such as Lyme disease, Babesia, Bartonella, and Ehrlichia.
With your support we can stop these controversial infectious diseases from spreading, and provide physicians with the resources to reconcile the controversy, and advance medical treatments and provide care for debilitated patients. Please schedule S 1708 for a committee hearing immediately. Massachusetts, your home, my home, and the rest of our country needs someone of character and credibility to be accountable in doing what's right on this issue.
Lyme Disease: Lyme disease (LD) and other tick-born infections as mentioned earlier are very serious diseases, Senator Kennedy. (LD) is the primary infection of concern given it's the fastest growing vector borne illness in the United States. (LD) is a bacterial infection caused by a spirochete (spiral-shaped bacteria) called Borrelia burgdorferi (Bb), which is primarily spread by ticks. Early signs of LD include flu-like symptoms and a possible bulls-eye rash. The International Lyme and Associated Disease society (ILADS) citing numerous studies and reports that fewer than 50% of patients with (LD) recall any rash. Although the erythema migrans (EM) or ``bull's-eye'' rash is considered classic, it is not the most common dermatologic manifestation of early-localized Lyme infection.
Atypical forms of this rash are seen far more commonly. The symptoms include muscle aches, joint pain, fatigue, fever, and headache. Most symptoms show up days or weeks and, occasionally, months following infection. Unfortunately the FDA approved blood tests currently available for Lyme are unreliable based on studies obtained from the Public Medical database.
Consequences: When LD goes undetected, undiagnosed, and untreated for months or years following infection, the bacteria can spread to the nervous system, the heart and other organs, tendons, and joints. This late-stage infection can result in a wide variety of physical, emotional, and mental or cognitive symptoms. This is a life consuming, and often life threatening illness that is not taken seriously, and eventually at the current rate, this storm is going to touch all of our lives. Many of these patients are being told "It's all in your head" when none of their tests reveal answers.
Children and teenagers are often told ``It's ADHD'', or ``depression'', ``growing pains'' or even ``hypochondria'' by their health care providers. As LD progresses forward and becomes more severe, many LD patients are misdiagnosed with various conditions, commonly including chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, multiple sclerosis, depression, hypochondria, attention deficit disorder, anorexia, obsessive compulsive disorder, Alzheimer's disease, and Lou Gehrig's disease. Consider the other infections in conjunction with Lyme that are spread by ticks and perhaps other vectors and you can see the urgency of my plight.
Under Funded: Tick-borne diseases (TBD), especially Lyme, are an increasing worldwide problem, with concerns expressed about Lyme disease by a number of agencies, including the UN and the World Health Organization, which are looking at global environmental and health-related issues. Yet, funding is not forthcoming from government sources and has even decreased for Lyme despite rising case numbers.
In fact, its funding is being vastly overshadowed by funding for other less prevalent diseases like West Nile Virus (WNV). In 2005, the government expended about $32.6 million (down from $33.6 million in 2004) on Lyme disease and $80.8 million (up from $77.6 million in 2004) on WNV, despite the fact that there were 8 times more Lyme cases reported than WNV cases.
Massachusetts: The incidence rate of (LD) in Massachusetts in 2005 was 36.4 cases per 100,000, which is almost 4 1/2 times higher than the 2005 national incidence rate of 7.9 cases per 100,000.In 2005. The rate of increase since 2005 has continued to multiply substantially around the country. Additionally, there are countless cases of (LD) that meet the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria that are not being reported officially, as many states are not required to report them.
Finally, the CDC reported numbers show 23,305 reported (LD) cases nationally; which is believed by most specialists in Tick-borne disease to be 10 times that number, translating into 233,050 actual new cases that met CDC criteria. No one knows how many occurred that do not even fit CDC surveillance criteria given testing inaccuracy, which is likely astronomical given the rate of misdiagnosis.
The long-term cost of Lyme disease to families, school systems, the health care system, and the economy is astounding. Lyme disease is believed to cost more than 2 Billion dollars annually for the care of patients based on the available figures from public and private investigation agencies.
Conclusion: Despite the prevalence, severity, and economic costs of this illness, patients with Lyme disease are having increased difficulty obtaining diagnosis and treatment due to the monopoly which the IDSA holds over Lyme Disease treatment and diagnosis. The ISDA is being investigated specifically for this reason by Connecticut Attorney General Blumenthal, given the scientific literature does not support their one sided point of view.
The ISDA physicians responsible for the this ongoing controversy often have conflicts of interests with other medical societies and physicians and insurance companies who depend on and utilize these guidelines to justify payment, and or providing adequate medical care to patients The results are simple: Treating the illness costs a lot of money, and insurance carriers do not want to pay for them. Physicians at the IDSA who are in a position to further this agenda and do so in their financial interests by ignoring scientific research suggesting long term medications and care are very helpful for patients with Lyme. You are in a unique position to right this wrong. Please put S 1708 (Dodd/Schumer/Hagel) on the calendar for a hearing today!
It will improve surveillance and prevention of Lyme disease, the development of accurate diagnostic tests, physician education, and it will fund additional research to determine long-term course of illness and the effectiveness of different treatments beyond the inadequate short term course of antibiotics perpetuated by the IDSA. It also sets up a federal task force to coordinate the federal efforts to combat Lyme disease.
With your help, we can protein and assist not only patients and citizens in Massachusetts, but also Americans across the country who are affected by medical monopolies and fraudulent acts. .
Sincerely, Michael Parent
[ 16. April 2008, 01:16 AM: Message edited by: METALLlC BLUE ]
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
posted
Michael, nice work and action! Take a look at the last sentence...not sure about the "protein" thing. I assume you mean "protect," which it will do...
Excellent work.
: )
-------------------- My biofilm film: www.whyamistillsick.com 2004 Mycoplasma Pneumonia 2006 Positive after 2 years of hell 2006-08 Marshall Protocol. Killed many bug species 2009 - Beating candida, doing better Lahey Clinic in Mass: what a racquet! Posts: 830 | From Mass. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
Thanks for the edit, I noticed protein! Protect it is!
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
xox![[toilet]](graemlins/toilet.gif)
![[puke]](graemlins/puke.gif)
![[cussing]](graemlins/cussing.gif)
![[group hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic