posted
"Meanwhile you have people over there actively putting together a conference right now. I bet they could use some extra help and you could get to know others, perhaps determine who shares your philosophy."
The conference you're referring to is by Lyme Disease Action. They are the group I spoke about before, who have moved so far into the arms of the Denialists that they could put on a show called "The Ventriloquist's Dummy" - Brooks being the Ventriloquist, and they as his Dummy.
As explained, they have bent over backwards so much to show Brooks and PHE they will "work together" with them, that they have even denied decades of peer-reviewed proof of maternal-foetal transmission of Lyme to please Brooks - an absolute disgrace with a REAL tangible effect of morbidity and mortality of children.
Elena
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Btw Optimistick, you missed my list of questions. So here they are again:
1. You have said that in the US, the legislation that binds non-profits obliges LDA to show "balance" and to fulful this requirement they must do things like invite top Denialist Tim Brooks to their conference, in order to retain their non-profit status.
a. Can you point me to the exact wording of the official regulations for US non-profits that you believe obliges LDA to do this?
b. ALDF, as everyone knows, is a fake Lyme campaign set up by Phil Baker, and several other of the most guilty Denialists on the planet. They function to disseminate misinformation about Lyme. They are also a non-profit 501 :
"The American Lyme Disease Foundation, Inc., a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, offers vital educational programs and services to the public, government agencies, and medical community.."
Can you please tell me how many ILADS doctors they have invited to speak at their conferences in recent years?
I wonder whether someone could have misinformed you about the nonprofit rules in USA, as they did me about the UK laws?
2. Can you point me to the exact wording in the regulations for CME's that you believe obliges LDA/Dr ****** to invite Brooks?
3. You mentioned that LDA has helped many children receive their "initial" treatment. What happened next?
Presumably they weren't all cured in 2 weeks. How many needed further treatment? Did they get it? Was it enough?
I am just wondering, because US friends tell me there are only TWO Lyme-literate paediatricians in your ENTIRE country.
And one of them, Dr CR Jones, has been persecuted so mercilessly for years by Dr Brooks co-thinkers in your country, that it's hard to imagine he has much time to treat children in between simply trying to retain his license amid the onslaught of false accusations.
4. When I mentioned I was shocked that Dr ****** uses phrases like "sensitive Elisa", you said words to the effect that there might be such a thing. (I'm not clear if you mean now or the future).
Its been the consensus of ILADS for decades that the Elisa is NOT sensitive in Lyme. I wont go thru the huge long list of reasons why right now (and as a scientist Im sure you know them).
But lets just take one.
Lyme borrelia come in 100s of different strains,which are genetically heterogenous and therefore their antigens differ. Thats one of the main reason the Elisa fails. Wheres the sci. evidence that its possible to create a sensitive Elisa?
[ 08-23-2015, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Optimistick, please dont try to make this into a British vs Americans thing - it's not , and that's not constructive.
Why on earth would you imagine that I would want to invite Steere? I was being sarcastic.
But it would not surprise me if in a year or two, Lyme Disease Action - the group you suggested I work for in building their conference - invite Steere.
They are the group here that Dr ****** has teamed up with.
I was not suggesting that all Americans activists are rich, or even that you are . (I dont know anything about you, other than that, as you said, you are a scientist).
I have spoken to 100s of American Lyme victims in the past 13 years, became friends with many, and read 1000's of posts by US patients.
My impression is the vast majority are not only not rich, but are suffering incredibly, and that things are pretty awful in USA - not the "tremendous achievements" you seem to think LDA has made.
LDA-UK also brag about their "tremendous achievements".
There is NOT ONE SINGLE LLMD in the entire National Health Service here. So where are the "tremendous achievements " here?
You appear to have only TWO LL paediatricians for the whole country in the US. And very few LLMDs for adults - I know that, because Americans are forecver telling me of the epic journeys they have to make just to see a doctor, and many cant go anyway as they're too sick or dont have the money, as your insurance companies wont pay.
(We have a nationalised health service, so we would not have that problem, but O'Connell and Brooks between them have ensured we don't have a single doctor in it.)
The few American LLMDs who haven't been persecuted into oblivion often have to skulk around like secret agents - just witness what goes on here, where we dare not say the full name of a doctor, in case one of the Denialists' spies hunts him down and gets him framed on some trumped-up disciplinary charges.
So where are the tremendous achievements for you?
Sure, people who are extremely sick can campaign - many do , both in USA and here.
But the extremely sick are not physically able to work 16 hrs a day for a cause - that is people in excellent health. And unless you're eexecutive is solely composed of retired people, then they must also be people with another means of supporting themselves other than working for a living.
That creates the potential for a conflict of interest. and a gulf between them and the grassroots they are supposed to represent.
A problem arises when those in the leadership of a campaign have a very different situation from the people they are representing.
A good example - Joanne, who is among the 0.00001 pecent of Lyme patients who receive free NHS long-term treatment in this country, tells us that the policy of trying to "work together" with Brooks has made wonderful gains (where are they?), and that he is likely to change and grow, like an ugly duckling transforming himself into a beautiful swan.
Those who have not had such good fortune as Joanne dont see the situation in such rosy terms, and are less inclined to trust the likes of Brooks, who maintains them in their misery.
Brooks been on the "throne" for 3 years now. In that time, he has not budged the UK policy of "chronic Lyme does not exist" - "no one with late Lyme is seroneg" ONE INCH.
I'll bet you anything the ugly duckling - if people dont manage to oust him - just grows into an even Uglier Duck.
But your LDA and Dr ******, giving him credibility he does not deserve, and helping to confuse people as to what he actually is just makes our job harder. on that score.
And yes - in response to your personal attack on me - I do know how organise a conference.
I was the main organiser of a very successful conference of the Spirochaetal Alzheimer's Association here.
We did it with a tiny budget. We dont have an income of a quarter million dollars like your LDA.
Following our conference, one attendee who was a pharmacist got a very good letter on Borrelia published in his professional journal.
And we now have another attendee, a top Alzheimer researcher in this country, so interested in Dr MacDonald's work that he wants to search for Borrelia himself.
Those kind of things can potentially turn the whole thing around - not just for dementia sufferers, but for us ALL.
Shoring up and promoting Britian's chief Denialist does the opposite.
Elena
[ 08-23-2015, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Another issue - on the very same page where LDA/Dr ****** describe the "Objectives" of this particular CME, they say that one of their aims here is to raise awareness of some promising vaccines.
Which promising vaccines?
Many many LLMDs believe it's not possible to make a safe and effective vaccine for Lyme at all.
With the 100s of known strains, heaven-knows-how-many unknown, and now, we must admit, the understanding that Lyme can be caused by a Borrelia that is NOT EVEN PART OF THE Bbsl group - (eg miyamotoi) - how can anyone create a vaccine when all the antigens are so heterogeneous?
Not to mention other issues, like antigenic variation, cell-wall deficient forms that will not have the vaccine-targeted antigens exposed, cystic forms that may also not have them exposed....
So which vaccines are LDA wanting to promote at this conference? Are they based on OspA - that poisonous molecule that caused thousands to get ill last time?
Elena
[ 08-23-2015, 12:33 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tincup, I like your idea of everyone boycotting Brooks' talk.
If the LDA and Dr ****** refuse to retract the invite, then I would urge everyone who attends to do the most dramatic walk-out you can manage, the moment he takes the podium.
A few quacking sounds wouldnt go amiss either.
But if "Dr ***" means ******, Im surprised you still admire him. Have you seen his latest stuff, condemning igenex and talking of the "sensitive elisa"?
[ 08-23-2015, 12:35 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
TNT
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 42349
posted
quote:Originally posted by Eight Legs Bad: And yes - in response to your personal attack on me - I do know how organise a conference.
I was the main organiser of a very successful conference of the Spirochaetal Alzheimer's Association here.
We did it with a tiny budget. We dont have an income of a quarter million dollars like your LDA.
Following our conference, one attendee who was a pharmacist got a very good letter on Borrelia published in his professional journal.
And we now have another attendee, a top Alzheimer researcher in this country, so interested in Dr MacDonald's work that he wants to search for Borrelia himself.
Those kind of things can potentially turn the whole thing around - not just for dementia sufferers, but for us ALL.
Shoring up and promoting Britian's chief Denialist does the opposite.
Elena
Very good, Elena! Your hard work is definitely appreciated, how ever obscure as it may seem!
We know all too well how obscure and invalidated Dr. MacDonald's research has been made to seem. Yet, the truth will be validated, as his work is TRUE science! He is not caught up in any political games.
Posts: 1308 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know this is a difficult discussion for some, but I think every movement is made stronger by worthy evaluation.
So in the spirit of knowing what we're dealing with, this is an important conversation to have here if indeed truths about Lyme and co-infections are being covered up by those with another agenda.
I thank everyone for hanging in here as discussion continues.
Posts: 13171 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd like to thank Robin for allowing this debate, and everyone here who has supported me.
While we're waiting for Optimistick to answer the numbered questions, I'd like to share the following with you, as it's ABSOLUTELY relevant to this discussion.
Every person hurt by the Lyme Denial needs to understand something called the Stratfor Strategy, and how it is being used against us.
I'm not alleging that the company Stratfor itself is being used against us (though it's possible). The point is, the strategy itself is being employed, regardless of whether or not Stratfor is.
Stratfor is an intelligence analysis firm which is regularly hired by some of the most powerful entities on earth - giant corporations, governments, etc..
It has its roots in a philosophy laid down by a US military intelligence officer called Rafael Pagan.
Pagan's company underwent various name changes over the years , later becoming MBD, and today it’s called Stratfor.
The Stratfor strategy is used to destroy grass-roots campaigns. For example, Stratfor was hired by Dow Chemical to destroy the protests over the Bhopal Disaster, where corporate negligence led to a massive leak of toxic gases that killed an estimated 15 000 people.
Stratfor has a network of spies internationally who join grassroots campaigns and try to subvert them. The Stratfor Strategy, which has often proved so successful in destroying grassroots movements that clients shell out 6 -figure sums for Stratfor's services consists of the following:
First, using espionage and hacking techniques, Stratfor tries to find out as much as possible about the most people involved in the campaign.
Next, the campaigners are divided up into 4 groups. The first 3 groups are courted and manipulated until their campaigning no longer poses any threat to the Client.
The fourth group aren't susceptible to this, so Stratfor tries to isolate them and stop anyone from listening to them.
Group 1 consists of people who can be persuaded that the Client is simply too powerful to be beaten. Of course history shows us that no one is invincible, but once a person has accepted that the Client is invincible, the only thing to hope for is that the Client can somehow be begged for a compromise of some type. So under the Stratfor strategy, Group 1 people - who are considered the most vital to court and promote - are conned into believing that if they only drop their hostility to the client and join in a “partnership” with the Client, great changes will result.
In fact, the Client does not have the slightest intention of making any real changes, but the new “partnership” serves to pull the rug from under the feet of the rest of the campaigners.
A perfect example of Group 1 thinking is those who say :
“Well, we are stuck with [fill in the name of any Denialist official or agency here], so the best we can do is to partner with them, invite them to address our conferences, hold events and produce pamphlets jointly with them, and perhaps one day they will learn something from some of our doctors.”
This is naivete at its worse, is hopeless and actively harmful to patients.
Group 1 people are then encouraged to go out and convince everyone else of the validity of their philosophy, and to suppress or persecute anyone who thinks differently.
So for example, Lyme Disease Action in UK boasts of the great progress that has come about due to its new-found “partnership” with Dr. Tim Brooks and Public Health England’s Lyme department.
In fact, no progress has occurred, and some things have got worse.
The official PHE position remains as it always has been – a complete denial of chronic Lyme.
There is no longer a single LLMD in the whole of Britain’s National Health Service. Even the tiny handful of private doctors who used to treat chronic Lyme, following a wave of persecution totally unopposed by the LDA -UK, have dwindled to almost nil.
Group 2 people, according to Stratfor, may not believe the Client is invincible, but they are individuals who can be tricked into believing that the campaign is somehow hurting those it is supposed to help.
So for example, campaigners against a corporation whose unethical methods have caused the deaths of people in Africa could be conned into believing that the bad publicity they are giving the Client will force it to withdraw altogether, hurting the economy and creating unemployment.
In fact the Client has no intention of withdrawing, but the Group 2 people are tricked and stop their activities for fear of harming Africans even more.
A Lyme equivalent would be the often-heard assertion that those who oppose a “coming together” with Denialists like CDC or Tim Brooks are harming the credibility of the patients’ campaign.
Group 3 people are the easiest to deal with, according to the Stratfor Strategy. These are people who only joined the campaign for their own selfish reasons, and don’t really care if it succeeds or not.
An example would be a politician who speaks out passionately for Lyme patients during an election, then, once elected, does an immediate about-face.
Finally, Group 4 are the people that pose the most threat to the Client. These are people (in the Stratfor’s philosophers’ own words) who are committed to social justice(!)
They cannot be bought, conned or manipulated into doing the bidding of the Client. The Stratfor Strategy calls for them to be isolated and “eliminated” – by harassment, character assassination, or, if necessary, something worse.
John Stauber, who investigated Stratfor, and is author of the book “Trust Us, We’re Experts!”, has written:
“The Pagan/MBD/Stratfor operatives are much more sophisticated about social change than the activists they oppose, they have limitless resources at their disposal, and their goal is relatively simple: make sure that ultimately the activists fail to win fundamental reforms...Duchin and Mongoven were ruthless, and I think they were often amused by the naiveté, egotism, antics and failures of activists they routinely fooled and defeated. Ultimately, this is war, and the best warriors will win.”
An example of a Group 4 person is Dr Alan MacDonald. He is committed to justice for Lyme patients, and cannot be bought. His research poses a huge threat to the Denialists, as it is in incontrovertible proof that Lyme is a persistent infection capable of causing a range of serious and/or fatal diseases from MS to stillbirth to Alzheimer’s.
Therefore the Denialists attempt to isolate him not only by using their EIS network to stop the major medical journals from publishing his findings, but crucially, by trying to use their newly-converted Group 1 puppets to denounce him.
Thus Stella Huyshe-Shires, head of Lyme Disease Action, publicly insulted Dr MacDonald, accusing his work of not being “evidence-based”, a charge so absurd that she ended up with a near-mutiny on her hands, with dozens of British Lyme patients dissociating themselves from her statement. She had to publicly retract and apologise to Dr MacDonald.
So the essence of the Stratfor strategy is to court people who can be either tricked or bought, and then use them to either transform the existing campaign into a weak and toothless “partnership” with the Client, or to start a new puppet campaign with the Client pulling the strings.
It’s absolutely essential to understand that this IS the strategy being used against us. Once you understand what is going on, you can prevent yourself from being conned in this way. There is no reason whatsoever to see the Denialists as invincible. Public health officials who harm the public can be fired; policies that maim and kill patients can be removed. But the first step is to recognise that NO gains will ever come of the supposed partnership. It’s a “deal” with only one winner – the Denialists.
---
I'd like to add that Marilyn/Joanne's statement here that "It does not help our cause to constantly attack the person who we need to help us" is a PERFECT example of Group 1 thinking.
Of course British Lyme patients NEED the public health official in charge of our Lyme policy to help us, just as American Lyme patients NEED CDC and IDSA to help them. But with the present people in charge of the Lyme department in those organisations, that ain't gonna happen.
Notice how Joanne simply cannot conceive of the possibility that SOMEBODY ELSE who, unlike Brooks, has a genuine concern for the public, could ever replace him.
Of course that won't happen easily. IMHO it requires a very comprehensive understanding of why Brooks, Beard, Steere etc do the things they do, and it requires a full expose of the coverup, with those people being publicly shamed and replaced with decent public servants who actually CARE about public health.
But if your starting point, like Joanne's here, is that it's **impossible** to expose them and **impossible** to replace them , then what are you left with?
Just a role as their puppet, advocating a meaningless, one-sided "partnership" with our biggest enemies.
The irony is that Joanne has forgotten how many times, in the 3 years Brooks has been on the "throne", he has dashed her illusions, refusing to "learn" from the best LLMDs in the world, whom he has ALREADY heard speak, and met in person, on many many occasions already.
His only reaction is to try and discredit them, as you can see in his official reports.
An exception is ******, but then ****** has travelled so far AWAY from Lyme-literacy that he is now writing papers about the "sensitive Elisa" - so it pays Brooks to court and promote him, in keeping with the Stratfor Strategy.
Poor Joanne once came back from a London conference in which Brooks was incredibly rude throughout the talks by several USA ILADS experts, who had come over specifically to help us.
He yawned and rolled his eyes during their presentation, and even seemed to go to sleep at one point.
Then when it was his turn to speak, Brooks attempted to trash what they had said.
Poor Joanne, who never normally swears, ended up on Facebook using words about Brooks that would make a seasoned sailor blush.
I'm not going to embarrass her by posting them here . (In any case I think profanity isn't allowed on this board).
But it's sad that all Brooks has to do is say a few charming words at a P-R session, and all the Group 1 people fall swooning.
We need to face reality. He's the British Steere, and he needs to go.
Elena
[ 08-23-2015, 12:36 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
OptiMisTick
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 399
posted
Pick one:
1) Once upon a time I had a three year old. As three year olds will, s/he would question me and, not liking the answer, would re;peat the question over and over.
It took some time before s/he finally caught on.
Asking the same question over and over doesn’t change the answer.
2) I started to answer some of the above, but unfortunately while I was lounging by the pool eating my Bon-bons, Stratfor* came by and sabotaged them, and now my fingers are numb.
My suggestion is 3)
The Desiderata
Go placidly amid the noise and haste, and remember what peace there may be in silence.
As far as possible without surrender be on good terms with all persons.
Speak your truth quietly and clearly; and listen to others, even the dull and ignorant; they too have their story.
Avoid loud and aggressive persons, they are vexations to the spirit.
If you compare yourself with others, you may become vain and bitter;
for always there will be greater and lesser persons than yourself.
Enjoy your achievements as well as your plans.
Keep interested in your career, however humble; it is a real possession in the changing fortunes of time.
Exercise caution in your business affairs; for the world is full of trickery.
But let this not blind you to what virtue there is; many persons strive for high ideals; and everywhere life is full of heroism.
Be yourself.
Especially, do not feign affection.
Neither be critical about love; for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is as perennial as the grass.
Take kindly the counsel of the years, gracefully surrendering the things of youth.
Nurture strength of spirit to shield you in sudden misfortune. But do not distress yourself with imaginings.
Many fears are born of fatigue and loneliness. Beyond a wholesome discipline, be gentle with yourself.
You are a child of the universe, no less than the trees and the stars;
you have a right to be here.
And whether or not it is clear to you, no doubt the universe is unfolding as it should.
Therefore be at peace with God, whatever you conceive Him to be,
and whatever your labors and aspirations, in the noisy confusion of life keep peace with your soul.
With all its sham, drudgery and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be cheerful.
TNT
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 42349
posted
Bummer! I was hoping to see some answers to those questions.... the poem seemed like a way to sidestep the questions-or, perhaps an admittance of defeat.
Some of us did comment late in the thread, but I have been following all along. I did not see any answers to those questions further up in the discussion as was inferred. The only thing I noticed was an accusation that Eight Legs wanted us to "spank her Brit" for her.
I personally feel Dr. Alan MacDonald's letter of concern adds much weight to Eight Leg's objection. It's not just her beef. For this reason, I feel it is important to have answers to Eight's questions.
The Wiki article portrays Stratfor as a benign intelligence gathering company.
But, here is a link from the Wiki article that validates what Eight Legs was explaining about:
"The Wikileaks documents also showed us how corporations and government attack movements in a divide and conquer strategy that isolates those seeking transformational change (who they define as “radicals”). Here’s how we summarized the strategy introducing the article:
'Divide activists into four groups: Radicals, Idealists, Realists and Opportunists. The Opportunists are in it for themselves and can be pulled away for their own self-interest. The Realists can be convinced that transformative change is not possible and we must settle for what is possible. Idealists can be convinced they have the facts wrong and pulled to the Realist camp. Radicals, who see the system as corrupt and needing transformation, need to be isolated and discredited, using false charges to assassinate their character is a common tactic.'
Knowing that this is their strategy should help social movements combat it. Stratfor does the same – it looks at the strategies and tactics described in books, webinars and trainings to determine how movements operate, how strong they are and what to expect from them."
Posts: 1308 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
"Asking the same question over and over doesn’t change the answer."
Optimistick, the truth is, you have not answered a SINGLE ONE of the questions which I have now listed twice for you.
Others have noticed that too, and user TNT has just voiced it.
My questions were important ones. I am going to give you one final chance to answer them, and then if you do not (or cannot), then we can only conclude that you DARE not.
In fact some people following this thread have already concluded that.
So here are my questions for the THIRD and LAST time, still unanswered. (I won't ask the moderators to take action over your further personal insults, your juvenile jibe about "three year olds".
I know plenty of three year olds who would avoid answering a question they did not want to answer by reciting an irrelevant poem. But generally, the questions they avoid don't happen to affect the lives of multitudes of people. )
1. You have said that in the US, the legislation that binds non-profits obliges LDA to show "balance" and to fulfil this requirement, they must do things like invite top Denialist Tim Brooks to their conference, in order to retain their non-profit status.
a. Can you point me to the exact wording of the official regulations for US non-profits that you believe obliges LDA to do this?
b. ALDF, as everyone knows, is a fake Lyme campaign set up by Phil Baker, and several other of the most guilty Denialists on the planet. They function to disseminate misinformation about Lyme. They are also a non-profit 501 :
Can you please tell me how many ILADS doctors they have invited to speak at their conferences in recent years?
2. Can you point me to the exact wording in the regulations for CME's that you believe obliges LDA/Dr ****** to invite Brooks?
3. You mentioned that LDA has helped many children receive their "initial" treatment. What happened next?
Presumably they weren't all cured in 2 weeks. How many needed further treatment? Did they get it? Was it enough?
4. When I mentioned I was shocked that Dr ****** uses phrases like "sensitive Elisa", you said words to the effect that there might be such a thing.. Wheres the sci. evidence that its possible to create a sensitive Elisa?
Do you seriously intend, in front of all those following this thread - and I can assure you, it's a lot more than the number who are actually participating - do you seriously intend to avoid answering every single one of them?
Elena Cook
[ 08-23-2015, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm particularly anxious to hear your reply, Optimistick, to the question on the Elisa.
You wrote:
"I’m hearing the ELISA has gotten a lot more sensitive, that in 2012 they developed a new, ultrasensitive, enzyme-based ELISA test which uses nanoparticles as a chromogenic reporter..."
Really? Just who are you "hearing" it from? Dr Ben Beard? Allen Steere? ******? ******'s recent co-author, a certain Gary Wormser?
It has been a CONSENSUS of Lyme-literate doctors for DECADES that the Elisa is MASSIVELY insensitive. Igenex will not even perform an Elisa unless a Western Blot is ordered with it, so concerned are they at its misuse to rule out Lyme.
It's a fair bet that many, if not most, of the tens of thousands of members of this forum had their lives destroyed BECAUSE of the insensitivity of the Elisa.
Or more accurately, because of the Elisa, which is inherently INSENSITIVE in Lyme, being used as a screening test to RULE OUT the disease.
So tell me, just what so-called "ultrasensitive Elisa" are you referring to?
We're very used to hearing about the alleged "ultrasensitivity" of the Elisa from Steere, from CDC, from IDSA, and from Tim Brooks.
More recently we start to hear it from Dr ******.
And now we hear it from someone at the top of the LDA hierarchy. Namely, you.
Do you mind explaining just what is going on?
Elena
[ 08-23-2015, 12:32 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wouldn't bother trying to defend Stratfor, Optimistick, by quoting some P-R guff written by their people.
User TNT has already posted one source, and in fact, it's a fairly easy matter for anyone to use Google and find dozens and dozens of reliable sources.
It's a matter of simple historical record now, of how Stratfor and/or its predecessors used that same Stratfor Strategy in such "worthy" causes as:
--- trying to knock down anti-smoking campaigns on behalf of the tobacco industry;
--- helping Shell oil shore up the racist Apartheid regime in South Africa;
---helping Nestle, who had incited an international boycott after its unethical marketing policies had been revealed to be the cause of mass deaths of babies in the poorest regions of Africa. Stratfor used their famous strategy to disorientate the protesters and destroy the boycott;
---assisting Dow Chemicals to decimate a grassroots campaign on behalf of the 15 000 victims of the horrific chemical leak in Bhopal, caused by their negligence.
Why are you trying to whitewash Stratfor, Optimistick?
Several MILLION emails belonging to Stratfor were leaked and handed over to Wikileaks, where anyone can read them today.
I have not actually said that Stratfor itself is involve in infiltrating the Lyme patients' movement. (If I had evidence of that, I would post it).
I would not rule it out though. I find it odd that a CDC Librarian appears to be one of their "sources".
But in any case, as I mentioned earlier, it does not actually MATTER if Stratfor itself is involved in trying to destroy us - it's their STRATEGY that is in use.
And very, very successfully too, for many years now.
Do you know, Optimistick, that since I was last on this forum, some VERY interesting documents have come into my possession?
They take the form of personal correspondence between leading members of the Lyme Disease Association and CDC.
And they validate what I have been saying here about the Stratfor Strategy ONE HUNDRED PERCENT!
Watch this space.
Elena Cook
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
LisaK
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 41384
posted
WOW.
I love lively debate. too bad my brain cannot handle all this.
I have not read it all obviously, but one of the ifrts posts saying that "they" need to invite views from all sides to keep their non profit status does not surprise me nor make me question the validity of that statement.
this has been turning up everywhere. take radio for example when stricly conservative stations were forced , not too long ago, to cut back on the conservative shows and add liberal ones to balance things out because some people didnt like the AT&T sized monster that was growing- or whatever phone company that was that was forced to split.
just as a meager example.
A question I do have is this: if someone is invited to speak, does that mean they actually listen to other speakers? I mean, are they supposed to stay for entire thing and mandatorily attend each available talk?
sorry if that was addressed above. I could only get through about 1/3 of this before my brain exploded.
-------------------- Be thankful in all things- even difficult times and sickness and trials - because there is something GOOD to be seen Posts: 3592 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I suspect there is no law that could be interpreted as forcing LDA, as a non-profit, to invite a person who openly espouses the idea that chronic Lyme does not exist, and who sets policies for the whole of Britain that condemn the entire chronic Lyme community to a lifetime of illness (and sometimes death).
Think about it. If every non-profit was required to include speakers who represent the polar opposite of what the non-profit is supposed to stand for, you would have animal rights campaign inviting speakers from hunters' guilds to lecture on the joys of hunting, you would have pacifists inviting top generals to extol the joys of war, and you would have your ACLU inviting leading dictators from around the world to explain the importance of torturing political opponents.
I think what Optimistick has said is simply not true, and I have asked her 3 times now to show me the exact wording of the law that she believes obliges LDA to invite the British Allen Steere.
I've had no answer as yet, nor to any of my other numbered questions.
That's why I mentioned the Denialists' phony "patients'" campaign, the ALDF, led by Phil Baker.
They are a non-profit too. Do they ever invite doctors from ILADS to speak?
With the current trajectory of LDA and ****** in US, and Lyme Disease Action in the UK, they could disband the ALDF and Baker could retire by the sea, relaxed in the knowledge that these will soon be doing the WHOLE (as opposed to part) of his job for him.
Elena
Elena
[ 08-23-2015, 12:30 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
TNT
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 42349
posted
quote:Originally posted by Eight Legs Bad: If every non-profit was required to include speakers who represent the polar opposite of what the non-profit is supposed to stand for, you would have animal rights campaign inviting speakers from hunters' guilds to lecture on the joys of hunting, you would have pacifists inviting top generals to extol the joys of war, and you would have your ACLU inviting leading dictators from around the world to explain the importance of torturing political opponents.
Sorry... I couldn't help but laugh at the absurdity of that!
If there is no law compelling LDA to host the IDSA viewpoint, then what in the world are they doing INVITING them??!!
I would have to agree that it won't be long until they are doing the denialists' bidding (at this rate). Posts: 1308 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
LisaK
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 41384
posted
yes, that makes sense.
then again, not much makes sense in the world any more, so nothing would surprise me
-------------------- Be thankful in all things- even difficult times and sickness and trials - because there is something GOOD to be seen Posts: 3592 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Jul 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is anyone communicating with the LDA about this matter?
Lisa - what makes sense is numbers - when there are large numbers of people concerned, the powers that be often back down.
For example, here where I live, a neighborhood didn't want another cell tower put in their neighborhood. They held meetings and 600 people signed a petition. The company decided not to put the cell tower there.
Another example recently - SF is being rampantly developed and pushing people out who have called the city home for decades. 15,000 signatures were gathered in 19 days to put a development moratorium for a particular district on the ballot!
If people feel strongly enough about an issue, it's called getting a numbers response. If you care about this issue, one place for numbers is the petition that Elena started, whose url is up at the top. The point of signing is to say that you are concerned about what's going on, if you are. The more that sign, the more a statement of concern gets expressed.
Another place for an expression of concern by numbers is at the conference. I personally do not believe that a conference should invite its opposite to speak, unless there is a good reason for doing so, like to have a rousing debate, or they actually have something new to say, and I haven't heard mention of neither yet.
Then after this event, for numbers to express to the LDA that short of a debate, or something the denialists have to offer us, to ask them to stop inviting the other side to Lyme conferences.
Posts: 13171 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
1. Make no mistake. There is no one on this planet who has done more for patients with Lyme than the LDA. Ever, anywhere. You only see about one tenth of what they do and 99% of it is perfect.
2. If you went to a special art museum show, entrance fee $40, you cant go in advance and make them put out only the items you want, it is their show. And if you attend it is extremely possible you won't like some of the art. That's life. You've got to suck it up buttercup.
3. If you purchase a fishing license and have not caught any fish all year you can complain like I like to do, but you can't get your money back. You can only go and hope for the best.
TNT
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 42349
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tincup: If you went to a special art museum show, entrance fee $40, you cant go in advance and make them put out only the items you want, it is their show. And if you attend it is extremely possible you won't like some of the art. That's life. You've got to suck it up buttercup.
But if the art museum happened to be dedicated for the sole display of a particular family's personal art, then that curator would be responsible to showcase their art, not the art of the family across the street, and not art at odds with the family's interests.
A Henry Ford museum would not display Chevrolets except to showcase the inferiority of GM products.
(Of course, it would actually be to showcase the superiority of GM, since I am a Chevy man.) Posts: 1308 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
Tincup
Honored Contributor (10K+ posts)
Member # 5829
posted
You had it right the first time. But then I am a Ford fan! Ha!
posted
I agree that the LDA has done great work! No contest there! And I hope the rest of the conference goes well.
What I am asking about - I also have traveled in the world, including in England. When I read Elena saying here that this invited speaker is responsible for people in England getting the short end of the stick - ie remaining sick and dying from these infections, then I too am asking, like she is, and like Dr McDonald is asking, why has he been invited to speak at a Lyme conference?
Does he have some new information to impart? If so, ok. We just want to know why he, as a reported denialist, has been invited to speak. No, I am not for Lyme denialists being invited to speak at Lyme conferences, not when we have so many who are good at research and clinical practice, who can talk to us about what's going on and what's new in the field.
I have not heard any answer yet. That's what I'm asking, and we are asking. Does anyone know? I would really appreciate hearing an answer as to why this is going on. Thanks.
[ 08-20-2015, 12:47 AM: Message edited by: Robin123 ]
Posts: 13171 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps the reason as to why the question should remain open, is that an LDA member, or someone familiar with this conference, may be able to provide insight.
It is a fair and important question. If we cannot feel comfortable asking explanations from our advocates, who can we feel comfortable with?
We shouldn't have to work for the LDA, or pay them an admission fee, to get an easy answer to a simple question that potentially carries implications for Lyme advocacy beyond the those represented in the conference itself.
Posts: 228 | From Unitied States | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged |
TNT
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 42349
posted
quote:Originally posted by Tincup: Not sure why you keep asking patients in a chat room about the details of organizing a conference they have no knowledge about, i.e. beating a dead horse.
If you are sincere and really need to know the behind the scenes workings...
1. Become a LDA volunteer and learn more of the behind the scenes actions as you contribute your time to their efforts.
2. When you send in your conference registration form and fees also send in your questions at that time.
3. Contact the Louisville KY Transit Authority and ask them the same question, which makes as much sense as continuing to ask people here who obviously don't know.
Since you probably won't become an LDA volunteer, and aren't going to the conference anyhow, and people here don't know the answer, why not lock up this post, as you are fond of doing to other's posts that have been worn out?
Huh???
I really don't understand why sincere questions and concerns are being snubbed.....by people who are supposed to be the advocates!
Posts: 1308 | From Eastern USA | Registered: Oct 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
TC, I'm sorry you feel rubbed the wrong way here. I think this thread is important because the issue is important, regarding who gets invited to present at Lyme conferences and why. However, I will take your advice and contact the LDA directly.
Btw, I am usually not the one locking up posts here.
Posts: 13171 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Putting the question out there as to the logic behind an invite for a certain speaker shouldn't be a big deal.
You say it's their conference to invite whomever they wish. That is true. As a consumer, and someone who is considering attending this conference, I, too, have rights. I can ask for information to help support my decision on whether to shell out $'s, and whether to recommend the event to others, etc.
Condescending to forum members simply because you disagree with their stance is unfortunate. No one is "pestering" or "griping". Some are asking relevant questions and expressing reasonable concerns.
To be honest, if I were to approach either the LDA or Columbia asking about the choice of a speaker, and I got the sense that they viewed my concerns as "bothering" or "hounding" them, I can assure you, they would not get my business, nor would I feel they were my advocates if they felt so disparagingly of my worries.
Personally, I have offered to help LDA, but I got no response. That was a little surprising as I made a living putting together conferences and writing press releases and brochures. Regardless, I assume they have a full house of qualified event planners, and had no need for me.
I have also reached out to Columbia in the past and only been met with silence. That was disappointing, although not necessarily a predictor as to what would happen if I contacted them again.
All I am saying is it may not be as easy to go to the mountain and walk away with a satisfying answer. And someone knowledgeable of LDA/Columbia plans may read this forum and see it and speak up. Or we can speculate, and through conjecture reach our own conclusions should no answers be forthcoming. Hopefully it is a non-issue, and LDA/Columbia will volunteer an explanation.
But why anyone would get all worked up because a group of patients may not agree with the selection of a speaker is beyond me. It does NOT stand as an indictment against the history of the LDA's or Columbia's advocacy efforts. It MAY reflect a bad choice on their part for this event. If that proves true, we might point that out and ask them to be more careful in the future - and move on. Why would we have the temerity to point that out? Because we have been victims long enough, and when we begin shooting ourselves in the foot, it may be prudent to speak out against the practice.
That is the nature of the conference model. It is not static. It will change based on the needs of its consumer base. The members of this Forum represent a part of that base. As such, their concerns have merit, and carry influence - and should not only be voiced, but be heard.
momindeep
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 7618
posted
duncan says, "Because we have been victims long enough and when we begin shooting ourselves in the foot, it may be prudent to speak out against the practice."
Perfectly written.
Posts: 1512 | From Glenwood City WI | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi everyone - hopefully we can stay peaceful here as we move forward. I have emailed both Pat Smith and Dr F***** asking what's going on with the invitation to this speaker.
[ 08-23-2015, 12:38 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
Posts: 13171 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no idea if this post will appear or not. In the last few days, virtually every computer/internet connection I have used to post to/access Lymenet has suddenly stopped being able to access this forum, one by one,( though I'm perfectly able to access other websites from them).
I gave the details of one to staff here and they kindly agreed to sort it out. However I am not near that connection at the moment, so have tried another one which I've used only a few days ago,a and could not access this forum/
At the moment, the LymeNet pages on the pc I'm using right now say both "you are not logged in" AND "you are already logged in". Very interesting.
If this message is successfully posted, I will post what I had intended to write.
Elena Cook
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
What, both logged in and not logged in? Kinda like my results for my original Lyme test - both positive and negative.
Posts: 13171 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, it appears (for now, anyway) that my post did arrive.
So here's what I wanted to say.
Dr ****** , just like Allen Steere, Gary Wormser, Tim Brooks and nearly ALL the major denialists at the moment, is in FAVOUR of using the C6 Elisa to rule out Lyme Disease.
I consider that an absolute disgrace, considering the wealth of evidence that ALL the serology is useless for ruling out Lyme.
The reasons for seronegativity are legion and I'm not going to list them all here - in any case most of you are familiar with them.
Now I would like you all to read the below, a quote from Dr ******, very brazenly explaining his views in an interview published on the site of Linda Nee, formerly of Unum Insurance and currently a consultant to patients contesting health insurance disputes:
"TFL What diagnostic test(s) do you rely upon mostly? Do you foresee any new tests in the pipeline?
****** I favor the C6 ELISA as the best screening test as it is an inexpensive and highly reproducible test that, as demonstrated by our research at Columbia, is also one of the most sensitive of tests while still being highly specific.
It is not perfect, as people can have Lyme disease but test negative, but if the test is positive, you can be nearly certain that you have been exposed to the agent of Lyme disease.
The other test that I regularly rely on is the Western Blot as it provides an expanded profile of the antibody reactivity against the Lyme organism."
That quote ALONE (which I've only recently learned of) proves beyond any doubt that the Stratfor Strategy is at work here.
Dr ******, who many many years ago wrote some good papers on Lyme, has sunk to the lowest depths of treachery by taking his "co-operation" with the Steerites so seriously, his position on testing has now evolved to a point where it's almost INDISTINGUISHABLE from the Denialists'.
While ****** tries to convince the gullible in the UK and US Lyme community that Tim Brooks is being "won over" to our side, and is somehow going to help the victims of chronic Lyme he has been persecuting, the truth is precisely the opposite - ******[/] has been won over to the Denialists' side - TOTALLY.
His very comfortable salary and prestigious post at Columbia - [i]funded by LDA and all the Lyme patients who donated money to them - likely have been "sweeteners" helping to persuade him along the way.
I am going to reiterate this because it's so important for those unfamiliar with the C6 to know:
The C6 Elisa is the first tier of the 2-tier method used here in the UK.
We have an APPALLING detection rate of Lyme.(see my stats above)
Dr Brooks and his puppets in Lyme Disease Action have invited Dr ****** to the UK. What will he tell us? That the Elisa in use in our country, though "not perfect", is "the best screen".
Shame on you Dr ******!
We should be picketing not just Brooks in USA, but ****** when he comes (again) to the UK!
Elena
[ 08-23-2015, 12:42 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
I'd like to remind everyone here that as we go forward, please stick to the issues and do not attack posters as we get through this together.
So I take it, Elena, that the C6 test that is being used is a standard one and not a recently "improved" one, if you know? In other words, there wouldn't have been new research done on it that someone could be reporting on?
Posts: 13171 | From San Francisco | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not a huge ****** fan, but him saying he likes the C6 and WB is not the same as saying he agrees with the 2T.
C6 does not equate to conventional ELISA in the US. They are distinct
Moreover, it is pretty much accepted in the US that the utility of the C6 may be restricted to acute cases. That means it should not be employed as a screen outside of any case lasting longer than 60 days or so, if I am not mistaken.
****** may like the WB to see if specific bands light up, say one or two, as the Chinese do, and as some European agencies do. I do not know if that is what he believes, I am just saying because someone thinks there is a utility to the WB does not by any stretch mean they subscribe to the 2T.
[ 08-23-2015, 12:43 AM: Message edited by: Lou B ]
Posts: 228 | From Unitied States | Registered: Jul 2015
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have removed all name references to an LLMD mentioned many times in this Topic thread as it is a violation of the LymeNet rules.
A lot of the discussion here has degraded to bashing, speculation and projecting ... none of this is productive, therefore I am CLOSING this Topic thread. Robin has written to the appropriate individuals and when or if she gets an answer, this Topic thread can be reopened and the information posted.
Thanks and take care,
-------------------- Lou B Posts: 2200 | From Mount Hope, New Jersey, USA | Registered: Oct 2000
| IP: Logged |
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/
Topic Closed
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[lol]](graemlins/lol.gif)
![[loco]](graemlins/loco.gif)
![[toilet]](graemlins/toilet.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[confused]](graemlins/confused.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic