Ever since the early stages of the US-China trade/tech/virus/cold war four years ago, there were frequent rumors – which eventually gave way to increasingly legitimate chatter – that China was looking to go full “nuclear option” by selling some or all of its $1+ trillion of US Treasury securities, which incidentally has not been too far off the mark: as the chart below shows, after peaking in 2013, Chinese holdings of US debt have been steadily declining (and not so steadily in the aftermath of the Chinese devaluation), and are currently near the lowest level in 8 years.
In any case, while Beijing has been gradually reducing its Treasury holdings it has never shocked the market with a major liquidation; and yet this ultimate threat has now found its way into China’s premier state-run English language news source Global Times.
And while not official policy, the fact that GT on Thursday has made a US Treasury dump front page news, citing top “state-linked experts”, is cause for concern (and certainly suggests that the Fed may soon have to step in with another massive QE to purchase whatever China has to sell).
The Beijing-backed publication writes today that “China may gradually reduce its holdings of US Treasury bonds to about $800 billion from the current level of more than $1 trillion, as the ballooning US federal deficit increases default risks and the Trump administration continues its blistering attack on China” citing unnamed experts.
The facts are familiar to anyone who has been following the Sino-US trade war amid the US descent into fiscal hell, which as we noted earlier this week will result in the US budget deficit hitting a record $3.3 trillion and a record 107% debt/GDP in just 2-3 years: as the Global Times reviews, in the first six months of this year alone the world’s second-largest holder of US debts dumped some $106 billion worth of US Treasury bonds (annualized), and is looking to continue trimming its holdings “systematically” – the publication states.
A key reason stated for the liquidation is that China is anxious over risks associated with the surging debt level in the US, which is expected to actually exceed the size of the economy in 2021, which would be a first since the end of World War II. What’s worse is that as the CBO has shown, what happens over the next 3 decades is even more insane.
One expert cited in the GT report, professor at the Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Xi Junyang, emphasized that “China will gradually decrease its holdings of US debt to about $800 billion under normal circumstances.”
He added in what appears the most interesting and “dire scenario” quote in the article(or we’re perhaps meant to take it as a veiled threat under the guise of a mere aside):
“But of course, China might sell all of its US bonds in an extreme case, like a military conflict.”
But as we detailed previously, such a “nuclear option” may not be that nuclear after all, since the Fed has monetized three times as much debt as China holds in the past 3 months without a glitch – meanwhile, even though dumping its US paper would result in some brief dramatic headlines, not only would it not affect the US, but would prove too self-destructive for Beijing to pursue outright (which currently calibrates and fine-tunes its exchange ratio with the help of its trillions in US reserves). Still, the fact that Beijing views such as an option as an alternative if not bargaining chip, enough to mention it again in the state-owned media, suggests that the possibility of a full-blown capital war is now at hand.
Should China proceed with this highly symbolic if largely innocuous escalation, one can only imagine what the US retaliation would be.
by Tyler DurdenFri, 09/04/2020 – 07:54
This important book review by Steven Guinness (UK) reveals the same old language of ‘interdependence’, collaboration and cooperation that was heard from the Trilateral Commission in 1973. The then-and-now goal is Sustainable Development, aka Technocracy, and will result in the biggest resource grab in the history of the world. ⁃ TN Editor
A few weeks after the World Economic Forum launched their ‘Great Reset‘ initiative, it was followed up with the release of a new book titled, ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset‘, authored by the executive chairman of the WEF, Klaus Schwab, and Senior Director of the Global Risk Network at the institution, Thierry Malleret.
Having read the book I wanted to share with you some initial thoughts on the potential significance of the publication.
As touched upon in my last article, there are 5 planks to the Great Reset – economic, societal, geopolitical, environmental and technological – all of which the book covers in detail. But I want to focus largely on the conclusion, as it is here where the author’s motivations and rationale for championing a Great Reset, in the wake of Covid-19, become clearer.
Schwab and Malleret characterise the future direction of the world as ‘The Post Pandemic Era‘, a phrase that is repeated ad nauseam throughout. Rather than define it to a particular outcome, the authors opt instead to ask whether this new era will be marked by more or less cooperation between nations. Will countries turn inward resulting in the growth of nationalism and protectionism, or will they sacrifice their own interests for greater interdependence?
No firm prediction is made either way, but we do manage to gain a degree of insight into the authors’ way of thinking when they discuss what they call ‘the direction of the trend.’ They write that concerns over the environment (primarily through the prism of climate change) and the advancement of technology (integral to the Fourth Industrial Revolution) were pervasive long before Covid-19 entered the picture. With the economic and health implications of the lockdowns now ingrained within society, Schwab and Malleret contend that long established worries amongst citizens ‘have been laid bare for all to see‘ and ‘amplified‘ because of the pandemic. In other words, if minds were not concentrated on the problems and threats the world faced before Covid-19, then they certainly are now.
And whilst the direction of these trends on the environment and technology may not have changed, with the onset of Covid-19 it ‘got a lot faster.’ It is why Schwab and Malleret believe that these two issues in particular ‘will force their way onto the political agenda‘ due to increasing public pressure. A movement such as Extinction Rebellion is one example. Another is the rapid growth of the Fintech community which is leading people to question what constitutes money ‘in the digital age.’
As for where they see things going in the future, the suggestion is that current trends are pointing towards a world that will be ‘less open and less cooperative than before the pandemic.’
Effectively, the WEF have presented the world with two potential outcomes. The first is that the Great Reset can be achieved relatively peacefully with nations acquiescing to the objectives being pushed by global planners. The second outcome, they warn, would be far more disruptive and damaging. It would come about through countries failing to address the ‘deep rooted ills of economies and societies‘, which could see a reset being ‘imposed by violent shocks like conflicts and even revolutions.’
And, apparently, we do not have much time to decide our fate. What we have now, according to the authors, is ‘a rare and narrow window of opportunity to reflect, re-imagine and reset our world‘. If a ‘proper reset‘ is to be realised, it can only occur through an increased level of collaboration and cooperation between nations. As Schwab and Malleret see it, the alternative is a world entrenched in perpetual crisis which would eventually lead to the disintegration of the post World War Two ‘rules based global order‘ and a global power vacuum.
There is, therefore, a very real risk of the world becoming ‘more divided, nationalistic and prone to conflicts than it is today.’
One thing the authors do write on from a position of clarity is that never can the world return to normal. Or more to the point, be allowed to return to normal. Their view is that before Covid-19 took hold, a ‘broken sense of normalcy prevailed‘. The situation now is that the virus ‘marks a fundamental inflection point in our global trajectory.’ In a very short space of time it ‘magnified the fault lines that beset our economies and societies‘.
If it was not already obvious, then the authors confirm over the last few pages of the book that the United Nations’ Agenda 2030 Sustainable Development programme is intertwined with the Great Reset. This is evident when studying the WEF’s Strategic Intelligence unit. Sustainable Development and the Great Reset go hand in hand.
For Agenda 2030 to be implemented successfully, Schwab and Malleret offer an alternative to the possibility of countries failing to come together. As you might expect, it revolves around collaboration and cooperation. In their eyes no progress can otherwise be made. Covid-19 offers the opportunity to ‘embed greater societal equality and sustainability into the recovery‘. And, crucially, this would ‘accelerate rather than delay progress towards 2030 Sustainable Development Goals‘.
But it does not end simply with the full implementation of Agenda 2030. Schwab and Malleret want to go further. Their aim is that the open exposure of weaknesses within existing global infrastructure ‘may compel us to act faster by replacing failed institutions, processes and rules with new ones that are better suited to current and future needs.’ To convey the importance of this statement, the authors state that this alone is ‘the essence of the Great Reset’. What they appear to be seeking is global transformation where systems and the age of the algorithm take precedent over political institutions. We are already beginning to see moves by major global institutions like the Trilateral Commission, the World Trade Organisation and the European Union to ‘reform‘ and ‘rejuvenate‘ both their work and membership. Covid-19 has undoubtedly straightened the hand of global planners and their quest for reformation.
As ‘Covid-19: The Great Reset’ was published, it was accompanied by an article written by Schwab and Malleret. Called, ‘COVID-19’s legacy: This is how to get the Great Reset right‘, they stated plainly that not only will a lot of things change forever, ‘the worst of the pandemic is yet to come’:
We will be dealing with its fallout for years, and many things will change forever. It has wrought (and will continue to do so) economic disruption of monumental proportions.
Indeed, no industry or business will be able to avoid the impact of the changes ahead. Either they adapt to fit in with the Great Reset agenda (assuming they have the resources to do so), or they will not survive. According to Schwab and Malleret, ‘millions of companies risk disappearing‘, whilst only ‘a few‘ e.g. corporate monoliths, will be strong enough to withstand the disruption. It is your smaller companies and independent run businesses that are faced with ruin, opening the door to a new era of mergers and acquisitions that will further erode consumer choice and competition.
Schwab and Malleret tell us that the worst of the pandemic is yet to come, and from an economic standpoint I would not doubt them. But let’s look at the health aspect for a moment. Global media coverage of Covid-19 has characterised it as a deadly virus that kills with impunity, and without the antidote of a vaccine could devour communities whole.
Perhaps surprisingly, the authors offer up a little fact based logic. They admit that Covid-19 is ‘one of the least deadly pandemics in the last 2000 years‘, and barring something unforeseen ‘the consequences of the virus will be mild compared to previous pandemics.’ At the time the book was published, 0.006% of the global population were reported to have died from Covid-19. But even this low figure is not altogether accurate.
In the UK for instance the way the death rate has been calculated has meant that people who have been diagnosed with the virus and then succumbed to an accident within 28 days of being tested will have their cause of death marked as Covid-19.
To quote Professor Yoon Loke, from the University of East Anglia, and Professor Carl Heneghan, from Oxford University:
Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures.
Schwab and Malleret could not be clearer when they write that Covid-19 ‘does not constitute an existential threat or a shock that will leave its imprint on the world’s population for decades‘. As it stands the Spanish Flu and HIV/AIDS have a larger mortality rate.
It was not an uncontrollable spread of Covid-19 that caused governments around the world to shut down their national economies, but the data modelling of unaccountable technocrats like Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London that predicted hundreds of thousands of people were at immediate risk of dying without the imposition of social restrictions, which we now know to be a combination of social distancing and lockdown measures.
When Schwab and Malleret talk about Covid-19 leaving it’s imprint on the world, the truth of the matter is that it is the measures imposed in the name of Covid-19 that have caused widespread economic destruction, not the virus itself. That distinction is one that mainstream outlets in particular refuse to engage with.
In summary, if we are to take the authors at their word, then they see a rise in nationalism and protectionism off the back of Covid-19 as a detriment to the quest for a Great Reset. The much coveted Sustainable Development Goals could even be at risk should nations turn inward. IMF Managing Director has said the world has a choice between the Great Reset or the Great Reversal (the Great Reversal being ‘more poverty, more fragmentation, and less trade‘) I would argue that there is another way of looking at it.
In the book Schwab and Malleret describe how in an interdependent world – which is precisely the kind of world that global planners have been championing since at least the end of World War Two – ‘risks conflate with each other, amplifying their reciprocal effects and magnifying their consequences‘. When nations are interdependent, ‘the systemic connectivity between risks, issues, challenges determines the future.’ It is the old cliche of dominoes falling. Once one falters it sets off a chain reaction, which was evidenced back in 2008 when Lehman Brothers collapsed.
The scale of change that globalists are calling for through the vehicle of a Great Reset, which by definition is global in nature, will in my view require the implosion of the current world order to lay the foundations for a new world order. The old must make way for the new. And the one method for how that could be achieved is through increased kickback against interdependence. Sustained crises offer many opportunities for global planners. The potential for a contested U.S. election, an upcoming no deal Brexit and warnings of ‘vaccine nationalism‘ are three eventualities that if brought to bear could be exploited and used to advance the cause for a Great Reset. I would say that the further the world appears from collaboration and cooperation, the more people are going to call for those very same things if they become increasingly desperate.
The authors say that there is only a narrow window of opportunity for the Great Reset. Let’s keep in mind though that so far it is only global institutions like the WEF that are promoting the initiative, not national administrations. When it starts to permeate politics is when you know the agenda is advancing. But what exactly will the economic and societal conditions be when the Great Reset becomes part of the global conversation? Has what we have seen up to now been enough to compel people to call for change on a global scale? Has there yet been enough degradation and material change to living standards for citizens to implore global institutions to take action? I would argue not.
Already ‘solutions‘ like Universal Basic Income have been touted. But as yet there is not a widespread clamouring for change. But that time is coming. Whether it be in the name of Agenda 2030 (aka Sustainable Development), The Green New Deal or The Great Reset, it would amount to largely the same outcome – the subjugation once and for all of national sovereignty where the nation state is subordinate to global governance.
POSTED BY: STEVEN GUINNESS SEPTEMBER 4, 2020
Technocrats Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx are likely hopping mad because they have lost control over the pandemic narrative in America.
Fauci’s replacement, Dr. Scott Atlas, promotes a very different approach to healing America, including herd immunity. ⁃ TN Editor
Dr. Scott W. Atlas has argued that the science of mask wearing is uncertain, that children cannot pass on the coronavirus and that the role of the government is not to stamp out the virus but to protect its most vulnerable citizens as Covid-19 takes its course.
Ideas like these, both ideologically freighted and scientifically disputed, have propelled the radiologist and senior fellow at Stanford University’s conservative Hoover Institution into President Trump’s White House, where he is pushing to reshape the administration’s response to the pandemic.
Mr. Trump has embraced Dr. Atlas, as has Mark Meadows, the White House chief of staff, even as he upsets the balance of power within the White House coronavirus task force with ideas that top government doctors and scientists like Anthony S. Fauci, Deborah L. Birx and Jerome Adams, the surgeon general, find misguided — even dangerous — according to people familiar with the task force’s deliberations.
That might be the point.
“I think Trump clearly does not like the advice he was receiving from the people who are the experts — Fauci, Birx, etc. — so he has slowly shifted from their advice to somebody who tells him what he wants to hear,” said Dr. Carlos del Rio, an infectious disease expert at Emory University who is close to Dr. Birx, the White House coronavirus response coordinator.
Dr. Atlas is neither an epidemiologist nor an infectious disease expert, the two jobs usually associated with pandemic response. But his frequent appearances on Fox News Channel and his ideological surety caught the president’s eye.
So when Mr. Trump resumed his coronavirus news conferences in July and August, it was Dr. Atlas who helped prepare his briefing materials, according to people familiar with them. And it was his ideas that spilled from the president’s mouth.
“He has many great ideas,” Mr. Trump told reporters at a White House briefing last month with Dr. Atlas seated feet away. “And he thinks what we’ve done is really good, and now we’ll take it to a new level.”
The core of his appeal in the West Wing rests in his libertarian-style approach to disease management in which the government focuses on small populations of at-risk individuals — the elderly, the sick and the immune-compromised — and minimizes restrictions for the rest of the population, akin to an approach used to disastrous effect in Sweden. The argument: Most people infected by the coronavirus will not get seriously ill, and at some point, enough people will have antibodies from Covid-19 to deprive the virus of carriers — “herd immunity.”
“Once you get to a certain number — we use the word herd — once you get to a certain number, it’s going to go away,” Mr. Trump told Laura Ingraham on Fox News on Monday night.
SEPTEMBER 3, 2020
POSTED BY: NOAH WEILAND, ET AL, VIA MSN
Dr. Stella Emmanuel Cleared by Texas Medical Board for Complaint while Real Criminal Doctors Still Free After Murdering Millions
Comments by Brian Shilhavy
Editor, Health Impact News
Houston physician Dr. Stella Emmanuel, part of the Frontline Doctors group that went to Washington D.C. last month, posted a copy of a letter she received from the Texas Medical Board to her Twitter account this week showing that the complaint against her had been dismissed.
The complaint was allegedly filed against her because she had a 100% success rate curing hundreds of COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a drug with a 65-year safe history that Anthony Fauci, a bureaucrat politician doctor who does not treat patients, claims is ineffective against COVID.
Frontline Doctor Stella: “I should let people die because I’m scared of Anthony Fauci? I should let people die because I’m scared of the WHO? I’m not scared of any of them. I’m not going to let people die.”
The FDA also refuses to allow the drug’s use in a wide variety of settings for treating COVID patients.
Dr. Emmanuel is not alone in her reporting of success in treating COVID patients with HCQ. Hundreds of doctors around the world are reporting the same thing.
This has to be the biggest medical scandal in the history of the United States. These doctors are all claiming that no one has to die from COVID because their treatment of using HCQ, zinc, and an antibiotic has a near 100% success rate in the early stages of the illness.
That makes those in government office handling the COVID response and denying life-saving treatments MASS MURDERERS.
How can they continue to get away with this?
September 4, 2020
Nebraska man dies from tick-related illness
The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) received a report of a death related to Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, a disease carried by ticks.
Monday, August 31st 2020, 3:45 PM CDT
By Press Release
Deer ticks, a.k.a. black-legged ticks, at various stages of life. The ticks can carry Lyme disease. CDC
Lincoln – The Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) received a report of a death related to Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, a disease carried by ticks. The man was in his 60s and lived in the West Central District Health Department (WCDHD), which includes Arthur, Hooker, Lincoln, Logan, McPherson and Thomas counties. DHHS has also seen an increase in reports of people with Ehrlichiosis, another tick-related illness. On average, the Department receives four reports of Ehrlichiosis in a year, nine reports have already been received to date.
“Ticks can be efficient carriers of disease and these tick-related illnesses can be serious and sadly, sometimes fatal,” said Dr. Tom Safranek, state epidemiologist for the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). “In a year when many of us are spending more time outdoors due to the COVID-19 pandemic, Nebraskans need to practice the basics of tick prevention to reduce the risk of tick bites.”
“Although tick-related diseases are not seen frequently in our jurisdiction, ticks that can transmit diseases are still found here. It’s important for people to take simple steps to protect themselves and their families. It only takes one bite from an infected tick to make a person ill,” said Shannon Vanderheiden, Executive Director of WCDHD.
Protect yourself against tick bites:
- Use a repellent with at least 20 percent DEET, picaridin or IR3535, or permethrin-treated clothing.
- When outdoors, avoid contact with tall grasses and shrubs and keep commonly-used areas of yard free of tall grasses and shrubs, as well as deer and rodents, to help limit tick exposure.
- Wear long-sleeved shirts, pants, socks, and closed-toed shoes outside.
- Do a tick check after being outdoors, including coats, gear and pets, and remove any attached ticks promptly without squeezing.
- Shower within two hours of coming indoors.
A relative to mites and spiders, ticks are generally found near the ground and in brushy or wooded areas where they climb tall grasses or shrubs and transfer to a host brushing against them. They attach and feed on blood. Engorged ticks are more likely to transmit pathogens that can cause diseases.
DHHS conducts surveillance on four medically-relevant tick species: the American dog tick, Rocky Mountain wood tick, Lone Star tick, and Blacklegged tick/Deer tick. Those concerned about possible infection from a tick bite should contact a healthcare provider. Suspected infections should be reported to a local health department or DHHS.
If you find an attached tick:
- Remove the attached tick as soon as you notice it by grasping with fine-tipped tweezers, as close to the skin as possible, and pulling it straight out. Early removal can minimize and often eliminate the chance of infection.
- Watch for signs of infection, and illness such as rash or fever in the days and weeks following a bite, and see a health care provider if these develop.
Additional information on tick-related diseases is available here – www.cdc.gov/ticks.
Some pets are also susceptible to tick-related disease. Learn more about tick bite prevention for your pets – www.cdc.gov/ticks/avoid/on_pets.html.
September 4, 2020
Persistent infection a Religious Belief? WG Co-Chair Says Yes
SEP 3, 2020 —
The following letter was sent to Eugene Shapiro, member of the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group and defendant in the Lisa Torrey vs IDSA racketeering lawsuit with Cc: to the Group. I have asked the TBDWG to acknowledge this letter, to be included in the records and request a response from Shapiro and/or Dr. Walker, Chair of the Working Group. Perhaps you could prompt the TBDWG to demand a response from Shapiro and Walker who believe persistent infection is a “Religious Belief.”
———- Original Message ———-
From: CARL TUTTLE <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: eugene shapiro <email@example.com>, „firstname.lastname@example.org“ <email@example.com>
Cc: (98 Undisclosed recipients)
Date: 09/02/2020 11:28 AM
Subject: Contentious 9 Hour WG Meeting: Persistent infection a Religious Belief? WG Co-Chair Says Yes
Contentious 9 Hour WG Meeting: Persistent infection a Religious Belief? WG Co-Chair Says Yes
July 14, 2020
“Dr. Walker said there is “emphasis on belief…almost religious belief that it’s a persistent infection” and at various times said they probably didn’t have Lyme to start with.”
Sept 2, 2020
Yale New Haven Children’s Hospital
1 Park Street
Ste West Pavilion – 2nd Floor
New Haven, CT 06504
Attn: Eugene Shapiro, MD
Below is an excerpt from my recent letter to the editor published in the BMJ. Could you please explain your motivation for suppressing evidence of persistent infection after extensive antibiotic treatment and then claiming there is no evidence?
Please hit “reply all” as I have carbon copied the Tick-Borne Disease Working Group. I am sure everyone is interested in your response.
Excerpt from the BMJ Letter to the Editor:
Re: Lyme borreliosis: diagnosis and management
In reference to “persistent infection after extensive antibiotic treatment,” an astute fifth grader with access to PubMed could find the following short list of publications: (there are actually hundreds) 
I would like to call attention to the following 1995 study from Stony Brook Lyme clinic. I understand the patient received thirteen spinal taps, multiple courses of IV and oral meds, and relapsed after each one, proven by CSF antigens and/or PCR. The only way this patient (said to be a physician) remained in remission was to keep her on open ended clarithromycin- was on it for 22 months by the time of publication.
1. Seronegative Chronic Relapsing Neuroborreliosis.
Lawrence C.a · Lipton R.B.b · Lowy F.D.c · Coyle P.K.d
aDepartment of Medicine, bDepartment of Neurology, and cDivision of Infectious Diseases, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, and dDepartment of Neurology, State University of New York at Stony Brook, New York, NY., USA
Eur Neurol 1995; 35:113–117 (DOI:10.1159/000117104)
We report an unusual patient with evidence of Borrelia burgdorferi infection who experienced repeated neurologic relapses despite aggressive antibiotic therapy. Each course of therapy was associated with a Jarisch-Herxheimer-like reaction. Although the patient never had detectable free antibodies to B. burgdorferi in serum or spinal fluid, the CSF was positive on multiple occasions for complexed anti-B. burgdorferi antibodies, B. burgdorferi nucleic acids and free antigen.
Let’s review another early publication where persistent infection was recognized:
May 13, 1988
2. Fatal Adult Respiratory Distress Syndrome in a Patient With Lyme Disease
Michael Kirsch, MD; Frederick L. Ruben, MD; Allen C. Steere, MD; et al
JAMA. 1988;259(18):2737-2739. doi:10.1001/jama.1988.03720180063034
A dry cough, fever, generalized maculopapular rash, and myositis developed in a 67-year-old woman; she also had markedly abnormal liver function test results. Serologic tests proved that she had an infection of recent onset with Borrelia burgdorferi, the agent that causes Lyme disease. During a two-month course of illness, her condition remained refractory to treatment with antibiotics, salicylates, and steroids. Ultimately, fatal adult respiratory distress syndrome developed; this was believed to be secondary to Lyme disease.
3. Granulomatous hepatitis associated with chronic Borrelia burgdorferi infection: a case report
The patient had active, systemic Borrelia burgdorferi infection and consequent Lyme hepatitis, despite antibiotic therapy. Spirochetes were identified as Borrelia burgdorferi by molecular testing with specific DNA probes.
4. Culture evidence of Lyme disease in antibiotic treated patients living in the Southeast.
Rudenko and colleagues reported culture confirmation of chronic Lyme disease in 24 patients in North Carolina, Florida, and Georgia. All had undergone previous antibiotic treatment
5. DNA sequencing diagnosis of off-season spirochetemia with low bacterial density in Borrelia burgdorferi and Borrelia miyamotoi infections.
Faulty/misleading antibody tests landed a sixteen year old male in a psychiatric ward when his lab results did not meet the CDC’s strict criteria for positive results. His Western blot had only four of the required five IgG bands. Subsequent DNA sequencing identified a spirochetemia in this patient’s blood so his psychiatric issues were a result of neurologic Lyme disease misdiagnosed by antiquated/misleading serology. This patient was previously treated with antibiotics.
6. The Long-Term Persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi Antigens and DNA in the Tissues of a Patient with Lyme Disease
Autopsy tissue sections of the brain, heart, kidney, and liver were analyzed by histological and immunohistochemical methods (IHC), confocal microscopy, fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH), polymerase chain reaction (PCR), and whole-genome sequencing (WGS)/metagenomics. We found significant pathological changes, including borrelial spirochetal clusters, in all of the organs using IHC combined with confocal microscopy.
7. Persistent Borrelia Infection in Patients with Ongoing Symptoms of Lyme Disease
“This pilot study recently identified chronic Lyme disease in twelve patients from Canada. All of these patients were culture positive for infection (genital secretions, skin and blood) even after multiple years on antibiotics so there was no relief from current antimicrobials. Some of these patients had taken as many as eleven different types of antibiotics.”
Persistent infection after extensive antibiotic treatment has been identified through the use of direct detection methods in academic centers and autopsy findings yet the average patient cannot obtain these tests to justify how sick they are with their chronic active infection. Serology cannot be used to gauge treatment failure or success which makes it the ideal tool for concealing persistent infection.
Serology has allowed the 30-year dogma to persevere  whereas direct detection methods are exposing the exact opposite.
We are dealing with a life-altering/life-threatening infection with faulty/misleading antibody tests, inadequate treatment, no medical training and absolutely no disease control whatsoever; a public health disaster. And what was the reason for the mishandling of this coexisting pandemic you might ask?
A chronic relapsing seronegative disease does not fit the vaccine model. The rush to create a vaccine here in the United States promoted the denial of persistent infection and focusing on the acute stage of disease hides the horribly disabled.
Questions: Is there a reason why Prof Kullberg did not include my seven references of persistent infection in his BMJ article?
Hudson, NH USA
 700 articles LYME Evidence of Persistence (personal Dropbox storage area)
 Lyme Disease Is Hard to Catch And Easy to Halt, Study Finds
New York Times By GINA KOLATA Published: June 13, 2001
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/13/us/lyme-disease-is-hard-to-catch-and-eContentious 9 Hour WG Meeting: Persistent infection a Religious Belief? WG Co-Chair Says Yes – Lyme Disease AssociationPat Smith Describes Pre-Meeting Effort to Minimize Lyme. Below in For the Record are the written comments LDA President Pat Smith, a… https://lymediseaseassociation.org
September 4, 2020