Garzie- Im 50/50 on the weaponized ticks thing from Plumb Island.

But one reason why its so believable for many Americans is because of the actual proof that was made public about US government testing different varieties of agents and chemicals (non- tick related) on its own people up to the 1970's. The "chem trail" people believe its still happening.

That is a fact that the US government admitted to in the 1990's. (This is not to alarm people here as it did in the past, nor is it "argumentable"). I googled this and came up with the documented evidence in the last decade. Quoted evidence from US court hearings. Some of it is well known and was even it the news for those old enough to remember. I will NOT bring it up here for those who dont know.

When the government burns trust...........the trust is gone.

If the Plumb Island lab had weaponized ticks, this has not been addressed in court (so far).

Girlie said...
“ According to CDC,"There is no evidence that ticks spread Bartonella infection to people." It honestly bothers me that this forum goes against the CDC. We have people on this forum that are convinced they have Bartonella while doctors and scientists who have studied this disease have no evidence that this is true. Sometimes I wonder that we are wrong about this. Even though the cdc may not know everything, they definitely know more than the people on this forum. Just because people on this forum believe they have Bartonella doesn't mean they actually have it. It could be something else. Not trying to offend anyone as I am in the same boat of sufferers. And those who test positive from igenex. I have read multiple peoples stories and I only heard about 2-3 people testing negative on the igenex tests. I feel like they almost always give everyone a positive test for one of the infections. SO many people go through multiple round of antibiotics and have been on this forum for 10+ years still complaining about the things they were complaining about 10 years ago. It seems like we could all be wrong about this. And for those who did get better, they could have just gotten better over time as our body is always trying to heal itself. Just my thoughts and I totally understand I could be incorrect about everything. Let me know you're thoughts and I really hope I don't offend anyone.”

I tested POSITIVE for Bartonella.
The dna of the bacteria was seen in my blood sample.

As far as only 2-3 people you know testing negative and Igenex giving everyone a positive is not correct!
I know way more people who test negative for Bartonella than positive with Igenex testing.
Although in recent years Igenex have added more tests to their list for all three “B’s” and there are more positive test results than before.

Well my opinion is isc much for the cdc. They know somethings just like we know a little more than them. I had 10 negative tests because of cdc criteria and guidelines which made me.suffer even more. If it weren't for the cdc guidelines most of us would be considered a "positive lyme test" by now. I also was negative for bart twice but positive for igenex. By the way thank God for Igenex. I know the CDC knows a lot and have more knowledge then us and they've researched for years but I must say , I've been allergic to cats most of my life and have only really.been around 1 cat in my life as a kid for less than a year. Was not scratched. I've only been bit by fleas, dogs, ticks , spiders and sand flies . Now the big question is how did I really contract bart if I was never really in "contact with that cat"? We must admit this and ask ourselves that. I always make jokes and say "screw the CDC" LOL because look at what happened with all the covid stuff and what the cdc said to do and not to do. I hope nobody takes this post offensive or gets offended its more for laughs. If we know we've never come in contact with cats period how else did we get bart in the 1st place. My thoughts are the cdc should definitely look into this and also update guidelines for testing . Igenex showed I had bart bacteria in my blood plus symptoms. I feel we should be diagnosed off of a clinical diagnosis and symptoms as well. Look how many people on these forums were told they don't have bart or its impossible they have bart because they weren't in contact with a cat. My old llmd tried telling me it wasn't possible I had bart because I didn't have any pet cats , the nerve, and that's an llmd !!! I always say we know how our bodies feel and one can only take a good guess they have bart based upon the symptoms they are feeling not only history of tick bites or cat scratches. I know this post was about ticks transmitting bart but I also went a little off track with the cats and bart. I had numerous tick bites and NEVER had the typical 🎯 rash. That's another thing I feel the cdc misconstrued. There's a number of things that are contradictory. I hope this gives everyone some insight. I used to focus on how I got bart but realized I'm waisting my time , because we may never find out how we got it in the 1st place.