As a follow-up to the previous petition update please follow the link below to read the official response from the Executive Director for the Association of Public Health Laboratories as there is admission that serology for Lyme disease is junk. Letter from the Association of Public Health Laboratories: https://www.dropbox.com/s/qroi7mut254rqh6/Tuttle%2011Aug17%20%281%29.pdf?dl=0 Quote from Scott Becker: “Lyme disease presently cannot be diagnosed based solely on a laboratory test because the tests still aren’t good enough,…” I immediately followed up with the reply below identifying the deliberate suppression of a more accurate test for Lyme disease. We all believe that the current faulty/misleading FDA approved laboratory tests for Lyme (serology) have been kept in place to conceal the fact that the two-tiered antibody approach conceived in 1994 at the Dearborn Conference has been keeping case numbers artificially low for decades. A more accurate test will reveal just how poorly this disease has been handled by the Centers for Disease Control. My reply to Scott Becker: ________________________________________ From: "Carl Tuttle" To: "Scott Becker | APHL" Cc: "Troy Willitt | APHL" , "Carol Clark | APHL" , "Eric Blank | APHL" , "Jody DeVoll | APHL" , "Deborah Kim | APHL" , "Peter Kyriacopoulos | APHL" , "Chris Mangal | APHL" , "Lucy Maryogo-Robinson | APHL" , "Julianne Nassif | APHL" , "Eva Perlman | APHL" , "Pandora Ray | APHL" , "Ralph Timperi | APHL" , "Kelly Wroblewski | APHL" , "Patina Zarcone | APHL" , "Chris Whelen" , "Ewa King" , "Chris Atchison" , "Grace Kubin" , "Joanne Bartkus" , zimmerms780@gmail.com, "Maria Ishida" , "Mark Wade" , "Tamara Theisen" , "Judith Lovchik" Sent: Saturday, August 12, 2017 10:10:58 AM Subject: Re: Public Health Laboratories: "A Culture of Quality" Dear Mr. Becker, Thank you for responding to my email. I would like to call attention to the following statement found in your response: “Lyme disease presently cannot be diagnosed based solely on a laboratory test because the tests still aren’t good enough,…” As pointed out in my previous email, we are dealing with a pathogen capable of ruining lives and for the past twenty-three years (since the 1994 Dearborn Conference) laboratory testing for Lyme disease hasn’t been “good enough?” The Association of Public Health Laboratories shares responsibility for this 23yr epic failure as APHL approved what was wrongfully established in 1994. The strict criterion for positive two tiered results has kept case numbers artificially low and is responsible for the unimaginable pain and suffering when treatment is denied. In addition, antibodies to a Borrelia infection are not produced for four to six weeks after the tick bite. As for the health care provider obtaining “exposure history, symptoms any other relevant clinical history,” my daughter’s Primary Care Physician ordered a Lyme panel through Quest Diagnostics and when the test came back negative the staff from the PCP’s office called to inform us that the our daughter did not have Lyme disease without ever seeing her in the office. In May of 2012 the CDC announced the Development of a Novel Genus-specific Real-time PCR Assay for Detection and Differentiation of Bartonella Species and Genotypes: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22378904 Excerpt: “The genus Bartonella includes numerous species with varied host associations, including several that infect humans. Development of a molecular diagnostic method capable of detecting the diverse repertoire of Bartonella species while maintaining genus specificity has been a challenge. We developed a novel real-time PCR assay targeting a 301-bp region of the ssrA gene of Bartonella and demonstrated specific amplification in over 30 Bartonella species, subspecies, and strains…this assay may be an effective diagnostic method for identification of Bartonella infections in humans and have utility in Bartonella surveillance studies” ____________________ Per the brochure link below it appears that the 2017 16S rRNA Sequence Based Bacterial Infection Conference was sponsored by The Association of Public Health Laboratories: Conference Brochure: https://www.cdc.gov/labtraining/docs/588-100_103-17_16S_rRNA_Sequence_Based_Bacterial_Identification.pdf Question: Mr. Becker, is 16S rRNA sequence analysis “good enough” as a laboratory test for the diagnosis of Lyme disease; a bacterial infection? DNA testing is being used for Bartonella and now Zika: CDC Lauds New DNA Test for Zika in Blood: http://www.medpagetoday.com/InfectiousDisease/GeneralInfectiousDisease/58622?xid=nl_mpt_DHE_2016-06-18&eun=g750897d0r Excerpt: “Frieden emphasized the distinction between this molecular test for Zika DNA versus serology tests. The latter can indicate any exposure to the virus over time, and also may not give a positive result in a person recently infected. In contrast, a positive molecular test result indicates a current, active infection.” ______________ Nested PCR and Sequencing for a Borrelia infection through Milford Molecular Diagnostics can detect early infection with as few as 25 bacteria per mL of blood. Source: http://www.dnalymetest.com/faq.html Question: Is the Association of Public Health Laboratories and the CDC planning to sponsor a conference to teach the national labs to use 16S rRNA sequencing to diagnose Lyme borreliosis at the spirochetemic stage of infection? Question: Why is there is a double standard for Lyme disease in reference to DNA testing? Early detection and treatment of Lyme disease is of utmost importance. The lack of early diagnostic tests for Lyme disease has caused untold pain and suffering worldwide as delayed diagnosis and treatment often leads to "chronic Lyme disease" or "Post Lyme Treatment Syndrome". We are dealing with a national health crisis as this runaway plague has unacceptable testing, inadequate treatment, lack of medical training and absolutely no disease control. Lyme disease belongs in the same health threat category as AIDS and Zika and with over 300,000 cases annually Lyme is now six times the AIDS epidemic and twice as prevalent as breast cancer. We have reached critical mass! From your website: -The Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL) works to strengthen laboratory systems serving the public’s health in the United States and globally. -APHL works closely with federal agencies to develop and execute national health initiatives. Quote from your reply: “We hope to work with CDC in the near future as they consider new or additional diagnostics.” As Executive Director for APHL your position should demand attention from the Centers for Disease Control concerning Lyme tests that are not “good enough.” It’s been 23yrs Mr. Becker how long will you continue to ignore this crisis? Sincerely, -Carl Tuttle Hudson, NH cc: APHL Board of Directors, APHL Senior Staff