Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine has broken ground again on understanding and treating chronic Lyme disease.
A few years ago John Hopkins broke the code of silence in medical mainstream with their provocative study on persistent Borrelia bacteria (aka chronic Lyme disease) which flew in the face of the CDC/Harvard stance that there is no such thing as chronic Lyme disease. Now they are at it again.
Harvard has spent decades publishing research to defend their stance while John Hopkins has opened their coffers to fight the growing pandemic. In a controversial move, they opened two clinics to treat Lyme disease which includes longer and stronger courses of antibiotics – a traitorous course according to Harvard and the IDSA guidelines.
Dr. John Aucott, the Director of the John Hopkin’s Lyme disease program, says, “The first step is to show that chronic Lyme disease “is a real illness.”Many people don’t believe it exists because there’s no objective underpinning.”…
That is, there’s no diagnostic test — a biological marker that’s present in people who suffer from chronic Lyme disease symptoms and absent in others. Consequently, the disorder widely called “chronic Lyme disease” is a grab bag of a diagnosis — and probably not one singular disorder.
Aucott and his colleagues have just published some of the first evidence in the journal mBio. They’ve found a set of activated genes in immune cells of patients newly infected with the Lyme disease bacterium, compared to similar people without Lyme.
Intriguingly, some of these genes were still activated six months later, even among patients with verified Lyme disease who were successfully treated with antibiotics. Some of these genes overlapped with those activated in autoimmune diseases such as lupus and arthritis — a hint that the Lyme disease bacterium can have a lasting effect on the immune system, a leading hypothesis that has lacked concrete evidence until now.
Dr. Harriet Kotsoris, chief science officer of the Global Lyme Alliance, says the results are provocative. “It may finally start cracking the mystery of why people fail therapy and give us an insight of the genetic makeup of post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome,” she says. “And importantly, it may offer a diagnostic profile.”
One big problem is that patients who believe they have chronic Lyme disease can test negative for antibodies for the infection. That doesn’t mean they weren’t infected, but it does leave them in diagnostic limbo.