It just so happens that 9 out of the 14 authors who created the IDSA Lyme Guidelines have direct conflicts of interest. As reported in Lyme Disease: The CDC's Greatest Coverup and What They Don't Want You to Know:
Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal investigated the IDSA panel members for possible violation of antitrust laws and conflicts of interest.
Of the 14 panel authors of the first edition guidelines: 6 of them or their universities held patents on Lyme or its co-infections, 4 received funding from Lyme or co-infection test kit manufacturers, 4 were paid by insurance companies to write Lyme policy guidelines or consult in Lyme legal cases, and 9 received money from Lyme disease vaccine manufacturers. Some of the authors were involved in more than one conflict of interest.
A new report claims that millions of lives have been saved in the past two decades due to 'early detection' of cancer and improved treatment, but is it true?
...
What this essentially means is that instead of taking responsibility for the medical-induced harm (iatrogenesis) that breast, prostate and thyroid screening incurs, the conventional medical establishment counts these overdiagnosed cases as treatment successes ('live saving'), despite the untold harm, physical and psychological, these diagnoses and subsequent unnecessary treatments exacted on their victims. This unethical 'oversight' resulted in expanding the number of 'cancer survivors' far beyond those who were actually 'saved from cancer.'
1. Myth: GMOs have been adequately tested.
Truth: For years the biotech industry has pushed the message that there is a broad scientific consensus on the safety of GMOs. However, when asked about the safety of GMOs, the World Health Organization stated, "...individual GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods." In terms of research, there have been no independent or long-term feeding studies conducted on any commercially produced GMOs to date. Additionally, the only testing currently being done is by the same companies that have developed and hold the patent on genetically engineered crops.
There exists a growing concern about the connection between GMOs and their impact on human health, the environment and societal responsibilities, and more research needs to be done.
2. Myth: GMO crops decrease the use of chemicals.
Truth: More than 80 percent of commercialized GMOs are engineered to be herbicide tolerant, insect resistant or both. As a result, "super weeds" and "super bugs" have emerged, which require the application of even more toxic chemicals to be combated. Consumers have started asking questions about the effects GMOs and the chemicals associated with their production are having across North America.The danger is that once these experimental organisms have been released into the environment they cannot be recalled.
3. Myth: We need GMOs to feed the world.
Truth: This is one of the main arguments supporters of genetically engineered crops use. Though there is mounting pressure on the world's food supply, studies show GMOs won't solve the problem. According to a 2015 report by the Environmental Working Group, 80 percent of the world's genetically engineered crops are corn and soybeans, which are predominantly used to produce animal feed and biofuel. There are also other strategies to feed the world, which would not have such great impacts on the environment, such as better use of the resources that do exist. Ultimately, the issue of global hunger requires political attention and much more than agricultural practices alone need to be examined.
Keeping consumers out of the dark: Debunking GMO myths:
Comment: Additional information about the negative effects of sitting too long: