There hasn't been anything that they've been able to relate genetically. There is some suspicion that there is a genetic tendency in people who experience this chronic form of Lyme that is more difficult to treat. But such a huge percentage of the population carries that gene, what do you do with that information?

So we find that the most significant thing is the fact that we have a lot of Lyme out there and there are different strains. My sickness did not look like my daughter's, and my son's did not look like my daughter's or mine. Is that strain-related? Is that individualized to the individual? Is it dependent upon where in the body the organism has taken up its primary residence? Those are all things we don't know. There's so much about this organism that we don't know. We know nothing about these newly discovered ones.

I brought this little vial here just to give an example. Up until just recently, Borrelia bacteria were thought not to be passed from the mother tick to the egg. So these tiny little speck-like larvae you didn't have to worry about; it was the next-larger size, the nymph, which is easier to see.

But in this new Borrelia, Borrelia miyamotoi, the mother tick is able to pass this transovarially to the egg, and if she's infected and the eggs are infected, those larvae are hatched infected. In here, there are 65 little specks. These are the larval ticks that could be infected. If you look at them, you'll see that not only are they the size of a period at the end of a sentence, but they're almost see-through, transparent. They're flesh-coloured. So if they're on you, the chance of ever seeing one of these is very slim. So that's extremely worrisome.

Are there other Borrelia out there that we have not known about, or haven't properly investigated, that may also be passed transovarially? There's just so much we don't know. We don't know how Borrelia miyamotoi responds to antibiotics. No tests have ever been done. We don't know how severe the symptoms can become from Borrelia miyamotoi.

We also don't look at Borrelia hermsii, Borrelia bissettii, Borrelia curtainback, Borrelia californiensis, carolinensis. We have lots of Borrelia. Decades of focusing on Borrelia burgdorferi, strain B31, that's used in the test.... I want to point out that this is a laboratory strain. It's a non-wild strain. If we're going to be doing proper human diagnostics, we've got to be using today's best technology to measure what they're running into in the wild, not a cloned replica in the laboratory, because it's been washed out.

There's a lot that needs to be done. A lot of this we have been stating for years, not on our own but with the backing of our experts on four different continents. We collaborate with experts and all kinds of fields of science. We're also working with the G. Magnotta Foundation, a newly formed foundation in Toronto, to begin to do the first human tissue study program, where we're going to use today's most advanced DNA technology to start looking in the tissues of these patient groups with MS and Parkinsonism and Lou Gehrig's and Alzheimer's and chronic fatigue syndrome and fibromyalgia.

But we can't do it alone. This is an enormous undertaking. We have developed protocols. We've worked with scientists on those four continents who have helped us put this whole protocol together. It's going through the process right now. But we cannot do this alone. We're going to need the assistance and the collaboration of governments for this. It has to be done. We're talking about a huge number of people and an incredible financial hit to the Canadian economy. That's already under way. We just have no way of measuring it at this point.

I think if we use today's next-generation sequencing technology we will begin to understand that. I can use an analogy that one of the Genome Canada-funded scientists gave to me to explain what they are capable of doing. He said that right now the Western blot is like using a magnet to go over a haystack looking for the needle. There are a lot of variables in there as to whether you are going to find that needle or not. But using new next-generation sequencing, not only are you going to immediately find the needle but you are going to be able to identify every piece of straw in the haystack and every living organism on every piece of straw in the haystack.

Now, that's powerful technology, and that's what we need to be using to move these health issues forward. Nobody is satisfied with Lyme disease; and the argument isn't just whether we should have long-term antibiotics or not, because we know, too, that's not the answer in some cases. It is certainly beneficial to the majority who suffer from this chronic disease after the short-term treatment process, but there are others who still for some reason are struggling with the treatment and not responding. So there is a lot we need to do.

Currently there has been an avoidance of looking in the human, and we've got to get back to that, because that was the foundation of science. We've got to allow the other foundation of science, out of medicine and health care, to be put back in the system, which is allowing that doctor with that patient to use that physician's best judgment and not be overshadowed with this threat that currently the doctors are under. We have probably heard that 100 times a year from patients getting it related to them by their physician: “No, no, I'm not diagnosing Lyme; I'm sorry, you will have to go south of the border or somewhere else. I'm not touching that. I have a licence, and I have children.” Those are the comments we get.

So I think we can really improve things and move things forward better if we work collaboratively. We have a great deal to offer in that regard.

Transcript

Discussions (0)