LymeNet Flash: Police arrest Lyme disease 'healer'

This is topic Police arrest Lyme disease 'healer' in forum Medical Questions at LymeNet Flash.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/1/82556

Posted by Lymeblue (Member # 6897) on :

Police arrest Lyme disease 'healer'

Ticks are known to spread Lyme diseaseA Las Cruces man who treated patients with a supposed cure for Lyme Disease has been arrested.

An Eyewitness News 4 investigation featured Carl Haese's Las Cruces clinic. Federal investigators were looking into reports that Haese was charging people thousands of dollars, saying he had a cure for the tick-borne disease.

In some cases, patients treated by Haese became even sicker, one urinating blood after the treatment.

FDA investigators say Haese was injecting patients with a mixture of drugs not approved by the government

http://www.topix.net/forum/source/kob-new-mexico/T0FCCB9BTSHH7B2U2

Here another article:

http://www.kfoxtv.com/news/19784543/detail.html

Posted by hobokinite (Member # 6132) on :

Anyone know what is treatment was?

Posted by seibertneurolyme (Member # 6416) on :

From the 2nd source above -- the treatment was IV Dioxychlor (misspelled in the article) and sulfoxime.

Quote below is from the following website;

http://www.newswithviews.com/Howenstine/james1.htm

Quote -- My guess is that fewer than one infectious disease specialist in a hundred has ever heard of Sulfoxime and Dioxychlor. These two remarkable antimicrobial substances are very effective in eliminating systemic fungal infections, mycoplasma, yeast and anerobic infections without side effects and at minimal cost.

Their developer, Dr. Robert W. Bradford, will probably never be invited to speak at an infectious disease seminar as dissemination of news about Sulfoxime and Dioxychlor would have an adverse effect on antibiotic sales. -- End Quote

Dioxychlor is available in many health food stores for oral use.

I am pretty sure that MMS is very similar in nature to Dioxychlor.

Bea Seibert

Posted by Gerifrog (Member # 17990) on :

-
Re: "Dr" Robert W. Bradford:

I was checking out the lawyers site on http://www.lymeattorneys.com (posted under medical questions "Upsetting

Website -- Lyme Attorneys -- NOT ON OUR SIDE" and I found this under LINKS:

Federal Indictment Charges that Lyme Treatment was Unlawful

The web page says: United States Dept of Justice

Welcome to the District of Kansas:

Contact: Jim Cross
PHONE: 316-269-6481
FAX: 316-269-6420

Dec. 5, 2008

LYME DISEASE TREATMENT WAS FRAUD FEDERAL INDICTMENT CHARGES

Federal grand jury indicts John Toth and the suppliers of his `antimicrobial treatments'

KANSAS CITY, KAN. - A Topeka physician who lost his license and two California residents are charged with creating

a fraudulent marketing scheme to sell medical equipment and drug treatments for a nonexistent epidemic of Lyme

disease, Acting U.S. Attorney Marietta Parker announced today.

A 25-count federal indictment charges the conspirators with violating the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act by

conspiring to sell a microscope that supposedly would diagnose Lyme disease and drugs that supposedly would cure

the disease. Marketing materials claimed that Lyme disease was ``the plague of the 21st century'' and was a

contributing factor in 50 percent of all chronic illness including Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

Charged are:

John R. Toth, 59, who is in custody at Ellsworth Correctional Facility: One count of conspiracy to violate the Food

and Drug Act, 8 counts of mail fraud, one count of introducing unapproved drugs, one count of introducing a

misbranded drug, one count of receiving and distributing a misbranded drug, and count of introducing a misbranded

medical device.

Robert W. Bradford, 77, Chula Vista, Calif.: One count of conspiracy, 8 counts of mail fraud, 5 counts of introducing

unapproved drugs, 5 counts of introducing misbranded drugs, 5 counts of receiving and distributing misbranded

drugs and one count of introducing a misbranded medical device.

Brigitte G. Byrd, 63, Chula Vista, Calif.: One count of conspiracy, 8 counts of mail fraud, 5 counts of introducing

unapproved drugs, 4 counts of introducing misbranded drugs, 4 counts of receiving and distributing misbranded

drugs and one count of introducing a misbranded medical device.

C.R.B. Inc., of Chula Vista, Calif., doing business as American Biologics: One count of conspiracy, 8 counts of mail

fraud, 5 counts of introducing unapproved drugs, 4 counts of introducing misbranded drugs, 4 counts of receiving

and distributing misbranded drugs and one count of introducing a misbranded medical device.

The indictment alleges that:

- Bradford, founder of C.R.B., Inc., claimed to be a ``doctor'' and a ``professor'' although he was not a physician and

had no science degree from an accredited university. He was the inventor of the ``Bradford Variable Projection

Microscope,'' which he claimed could be used to identify Lyme disease. He had conducted human intravenous drug

experiments for treatment of Lyme disease at a hospital in Tijuana, Mexico.

- Byrd was executive vice president of C.R.B., Inc.

- During the conspiracy, Toth was licensed as a medical doctor in Kansas. He was the director of The Luke Center

for Integrative Health, Inc., in Topeka, Kan., and he established the Alternative Therapies Health Association.

Bradford, Byrd and C.R.B., Inc., executed a marketing plan aimed at creating demand for Bradford's microscope and

certain drugs they sold for the treatment of Lyme disease. In fact, there was no epidemic of Lyme disease, the

microscope could not diagnose Lyme disease and the drugs the defendants were selling could not cure Lyme

disease. The Food and Drug Administration did not approve Bradford's microscope or his treatments for Lyme

disease, which included injecting patients with Bismacine, Dioxychlor Sulfoxime, and Bio-Rizin

According to the indictment, Bradford, Byrd and C.R.B., Inc., made more than $400,000 from the fraudulent

scheme during a period from April 2004 to August 2006.

In Topeka, Toth used Bradford's microscope and his treatments. Toth charged patients approximately $100 for each

use of the microscope and approximately $320 for a series of injections he called ``antimicrobial treatment.''

In March 2008 in Shawnee County District Court, Toth was sentenced to 32 months after pleading no contest to a

state charge of reckless involuntary manslaughter in the death of a patient, Beverly A. Wunder. As part of the plea

agreement, he surrendered his medical license.

Upon conviction, the federal charges carry the following penalties:

- Conspiracy: A maximum penalty of 5 years in federal prison and a fine up to $250,000.

- Mail fraud: A maximum penalty of 20 years and a fine up to $250,000.

- Introduction of an unapproved drug into interstate commerce: A maximum penalty of 3 years and a fine up to $250,000.

- Introduction of a misbranded drug into interstate commerce: A maximum penalty of 3 years and a fine up to $250,000.

- Receiving and distributing a misbranded drug: A maximum penalty of 3 years and a fine up to $250,000.

Introduction of a misbranded medical device into interstate commerce: A maximum penalty of 3years and a fine up to $250,000.

The Food and Drug Administration - Office of Criminal Investigation worked on the case. Assistant U.S. Attorney

Kimberly Hare and John Claud, trial attorney with the Department of Justice's Office of Consumer Litigation, are

prosecuting.

This is the website:

http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ks/press/Dec2008/Dec05a.html

Btw, I read the entire article by Howenstein (posting above). He really rants against the FDA & big pharma. But

some of the things he claims aren't true, Ex: "The "war" on cancer has been lost as chemotherapy and radiation are

no more successful now than they were 25 years ago." If that were true, the survival rate would not have improved

so much. (and I'm a cancer survivor.)

This is all very upsetting.

Geri
-

Posted by luvs2ride (Member # 8090) on :

Geri,

I just saw an oncologist on Bill O'Reilly state that people are not living longer with current cancer treatments.

Bill's father died of radiation treatment for cancer. It was actually the radiation that killed him. Bill has done much to raise funds for cancer research in the 20 yrs since his father died.

He said to the oncologist "we don't seem any closer to a cure for cancer". She said "Yes, we have made great strides in cancer treatment."
Bill said "People are living longer?" She said "No. But we have found a way to identify who will be able to handle the toxic side effects of the treatment and who will not."

hmmmmmm.....I don't consider that to be much advancement. And, since I have had a gene test specific to my ability to detoxify and I am very defective at it, I guess I would not even be a candidate for chemo/radiation.

Posted by Pinelady (Member # 18524) on :

This is ridiculous. Don't buy the microscope! http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/recalls/2006/10/unauthorized_intravenous_healt.html

How stupid we have become. Fact is they don't want

us to see what is crawling around in our skin and

be forever dependent on a grossly inadequate

medical establishment. One death is reported in the

hundred of thousands of Lyme patients. I call

that pretty good odds. Wait a minute W. said Lyme

doesnt kill so it had to be the drug. Now if they

had told me not to buy the gas because they were

jacking the price and making a killing I might

have believed them. But not any more. How much are tickets to Russia?

Posted by D Bergy (Member # 9984) on :

So a microscope can be banned from being used as a diagnostic tool? As far as I know a microscope magnifies things and they all do this in one way or another. I don't think it matters what kind you use and if this one has a better resolution, it seems stupid to say you cannot use this particular microscope. It either magnifies or it doesn't. You can't really fake this sort of thing.

It is similar to someone saying I cannot use a Wal-Mart magnifying glass to remove a sliver.

Dan

Posted by Pinelady (Member # 18524) on :

Something is not right here. The post on the microscope is dated 2006?