Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbiology

Topics with information and discussion about published studies related to Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
User avatar
LHCTom
Posts: 341
Joined: Mon 22 Oct 2012 4:18

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by LHCTom » Thu 20 Nov 2014 2:33

I have no new information but the labs originally named were UCLA and another in Maine. I have no idea if this was accurate or is continuing. I'm sure the Johnson paper poisoned the atmosphere creating fear working with ALS. I have spoken with some people I consider significant who said the CDC Johnson paper created a serious black mark and their organization was not interested in conducting or assisting in a study even if I funded it. The Johnson paper created significant fear amonst the research community as very few are willing to get sideways with the CDC unless they have lots of guts.

I'm quite sure Johnson and Russell knew if they could find something wrong and spin it right, the combination of the CDC's power, reputation and everyone's desire to please the CDC could manipulate attitudes through fear. Its the most gross behavior one can do in the name of science irrespective of the performance of the ALS/Sapi culture. Some really ugly folks like RR and hv808ct are smart enough to know all all this but have openly stated they enjoy ridiculing Lyme patients. Now what would one expect from someone who puts so much energy into a Blog that states it ridicules people who are ill. This attitude is rampant among this group of doctors and researchers who use their access to the media and journals to ridicule the Lyme communtity while manipulating the truth. It makes pseudoscience look good.

Most understand a culture that works has the potential to end the critical controversies if it performs. Most also understand the value is proprtional to the gain x risk of failure. That means when the gain is significant such as putting an end to the persistence debate, then its worth risk of failure. Especially since a culture validation is not terribly expensive or difficult for experienced microbiologists to design a study with enough redundancy to be sure its right. Its just bad science and people who live in low places who profess junk science.
The greater the ignorance, the greater the dogmatism.

Attributed to William Osler, 1902

lou
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri 2 Nov 2007 0:41

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by lou » Fri 21 Nov 2014 2:17

Dr. Mac, you said let the final act be done by Johnson in Ft. Collins lab. I would not give the last word to someone whose honesty and/or competence are so much in question. It is obvious that she made up her mind before any work was done and written up. This kind of faking it should bar such persons from any further federal employment and probably from science entirely.

lou
Posts: 215
Joined: Fri 2 Nov 2007 0:41

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by lou » Fri 21 Nov 2014 16:35

Tom, re what you said about people on this forum or in CDC, etc who ridicule and impede adequate medical diagnosis and treatment of people with a serious bacterial infection........my question is whether it is possible to be evil without major mental issues? Is the former always a result of the latter, or is it possible they are separate sometimes?

User avatar
inmacdonald
Posts: 977
Joined: Fri 13 Jan 2012 22:32

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by inmacdonald » Wed 26 Nov 2014 3:35

In my rebuttal to the Johnson ET al regarding alleged issues of contamination In Advanced Labs
The CDC. AND JOHNSON AND CO -AUTHORS. :
CDC Made Assertions : namely that 100% sequence IDENTITY of DNA FROM Advaced Lab GenBank deposits
With CDC deposits also accepted in GenBank,
THESE ALLEGATIONS BY CDC REQUIRE FACT CHECKS!!!

FACT CHECKS : did BLASTn super - Computer GenBank DNA sequences on deposit in GenBank
Produce , as alleged in Table 1 of Johnson
Any 100% DNA sequence identities with the Advanced Lab Deposits and the CDC DNA sequences???
ANSWER FROM FACT CHECKING :
Only ONE OF THE Advanced Labs isolates passed the CDC 100% DNA SEQUENCE matches with the CDC
And this - a single positive blood culture isolate showing Afzelii type borrelia.

CONCLUSION : The 100 %. DNA sequence. MATCH TEST ---FAILED in 40 of 41. Cases in Johnson et al Table 1...
THEREFORE, BY THE CDC / Johnson Metric....... FAILURE IN ATTEMPTED PROOF OF CONTAMINATION
....DUE TO FAILURE OF GenBank interrogations with government supercomputer and government BLASTn software
To find 100%. DNA sequence matches in 40 Advanced Labs GenBank deposits.....
The CDC ALLEGATION OF 100% DNA sequence matches in 41/41 blood culture borrelia isolates
Produces only One. ( Not 41 ). Of. Advanced Labs GenBank deposits iinitiated GenBank..
CDC ALLEGATIONS OF DNA EVIDENCE FOR CONTAMINATION
IN 41/41. Advanced Lab GenBank deposits from their human blood culture borrelia isolates from
Blood cultures from human blood...TOTALLY FALSE,!!!

I ENCOURAGE THE READER TO PERFORM THEIR Blastn DNA sequence searches,
Using my instruction set of steps for the performance of GenBank searches using their own personal computers.


VERDICT : The CDC /. JOHNSON ET al Allegations. Are Rejected by FACT CHECKING OF
GenBank. DNA sequences.

ABSENCE OF 100%. DNA matches in Forty of the cases in Johnson et al Table 1
At 100%. Identities. With. CDC. DNA sequences
Overturns the Johnson et al allegation of Contamination.....

Respectfully submitted,

Alan B. MacDonald, MD, FCAP
November 24, 2014

User avatar
ChronicLyme19
Posts: 564
Joined: Mon 11 Aug 2014 17:42
Location: NY, USA

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by ChronicLyme19 » Fri 28 Nov 2014 5:07

Glad to see this is getting published. Ok, so playing devil's advocate here, why did the one still match? Where did that one come from?
Half of what you are taught is incorrect, but which half? What if there's another half missing?

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by nnecker » Fri 28 Nov 2014 14:15

LCHTom said:
contamination that occurred in independent confirmatory DNA PCR and sequencing tests does not invalidate the culture itself. It only implicates those tests
assessment conclusion is only meaningful if the contamination entered the actual cultures rather than later nested PCR or sequencing which occurred in Alabama.
The CDC made no effort at analyzing where the contamination entered the study process....An analysis would have shown the contamination probably entered at the PCR or sequencing steps.]
The phone number to the Eurofins lab in Alabama is (256) 704-8200.

Tell them that you think the contamination in Sapi's culture took place at their lab.Please let us know what they have to say about that.

velvetmagnetta
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun 23 Feb 2014 22:47

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by velvetmagnetta » Fri 28 Nov 2014 16:22

Am I missing something here? Whether the spirochetes grew from contamination or from patient blood, didn't it still GROW?

Doesn't that just further prove that the culture Sapi created for growing Borrelia works?

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by nnecker » Fri 28 Nov 2014 16:46

Well I for one don't trust what Sapi grew in those cultures.Of course,if someone who we all can trust does it,then we will know for sure if Sapi's culture works or not.

velvetmagnetta
Posts: 469
Joined: Sun 23 Feb 2014 22:47

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by velvetmagnetta » Fri 28 Nov 2014 18:09

nnecker wrote:
...if someone who we all can trust does it,then we will know for sure if Sapi's culture works or not.
Hear, hear! All hail nnecker!

Let's DO this. Let's get this DONE.

nnecker
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed 19 Dec 2012 22:57

Re: Rebuttal published to CDC vs Advanced in J Clin Microbio

Post by nnecker » Fri 28 Nov 2014 20:25

LCHTom has all this money burning a hole in his pocket looking to sponsor a Lyme study with it,well here is a study design.
I will just use one of Bartholds studies as a guide.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2346637/

Just use the 4 month interval part of it where it inoculates the mice and then waits 4 months before treatment.It then treats the mice with Ceftriaxone for thirty days and then waits another three months.It then tissue cultures the mice.

Split the treated mice into 2 groups.One group gets cultured using standard BSK medium, the other group using the Sapi culture method.

This should not cost that much to do.I don't know why Sapi has not done this already,oh,oh, well maybe I do.

Post Reply