ALS is Lyme in 47% of cases; They’ll be “Seronegative” – Says IDSA’s JJ Halperin


“Of 19 unselected patients with the diagnosis of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) living in Suffolk County,
New York (an area of high Lyme disease prevalence), 9 had serologic evidence of exposure to Borrelia burgdorferi.”

47%; 9 of 19 men with Lou Gehrig’s Disease in a Lyme-endemic area were exposed to borrelia

Click here to continue reading the study

Article abstract on MedLine:


3 comments for “ALS is Lyme in 47% of cases; They’ll be “Seronegative” – Says IDSA’s JJ Halperin

  1. April 8, 2012 at 3:45 pm

    Actually, Mr. Halperin massaged his numbers, because in his study he in fact found that nearly 90% of the ALS patients in the study were exposed to Lyme bacteria, which can be read in my free online book (PDF):

    • Judy Thoman
      October 11, 2013 at 9:51 am

      Who would be the best contact for my husband, who has been diagnosed with ALS, to see to receive treatment, for Lyme?
      We’re hoping for a miracle!

  2. April 8, 2012 at 3:53 pm

    I quote from my book (page 34):

    “The Halperin paper mentions in its first paragraph (green box) that nine out
    of nineteen ALS patients tested positive for Lyme. The notoriously unreliable
    ELISA test was used, a test with an anacceptably high proportion of false
    negatives. So that would be 47% of ALS patients testing positive for Lyme.
    47% would be an astonishingly high number by itself, but the paper’s authors
    – possibly afraid of the consequences to their careers if they were to pursue
    an “ALS is Lyme” angle, decided to “cook the books” and only casually
    mention, buried further in the paper (red boxes), that in fact it was 21 out of
    24 ALS patients that tested Lyme-positive, making it 88%, or almost nine out
    of ten patients. Since the false-negative rate of the tests used is notoriously
    high, we are justified in concluding that most likely, every single ALS patient in
    their study was Lyme-positive.
    The authors decided to pretend that cell-mediated immunity to Borrelia did
    not count as “Lyme-positive”, even though it is a certain indicator of internal
    exposure to the bacterium.”

Comments are closed.