Here is their opinion article title, amazing in 2017 how poorly they reference their evidence…
“False and Misleading Information about Lyme Disease”
Here is one of their uniformed statements, “Persistent, unexplained subjective symptoms such as chronic fatigue and pain are common in the general population. Annual surveys by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) indicate that approximately 15% of women and 10% of men in the United States felt either exhausted or extremely tired either every day or most days of the preceding three months.”
So, because a certain percentage of the population has fatigue and pain, Lyme fatigue and pain is to be discounted. What is not said is that Lyme fatigue and pain comes with many other systemic symptoms not seen in the general population.
Here is their next line, “The Institute of Medicine reports that acute and unspecified chronic pain affects 116 million Americans, about 30% of the population; such individuals often go from one physician to another, unable to find anyone who can either identify the cause of their pain or suggest a remedy.”
If you begin a differential diagnostic work-up by using flawed tests to rule out the potential diagnosis you will end up with a bunch of sick people looking for answers. In their anti-science way, these authors fail to take into account their massive 30 years of failings, and intentional avoidance to investigate human Lyme pathogenesis in an appropriate open, transparent, and collaborative fashion. Closed door science is anti-science.
Co-author Baker, in his role of doling out tax payer funded research dollars at the NIH for so many years during which time he denied good research in favor of their desired poorly designed research to support many conflicts of interest, has harmed an untold number of Americans and other victims around the globe whose countries put so much faith in the American CDC and NIH.
The old guard has got to leave because they refuse scientific debate, and science cannot become evidence if not debated, If not debated, it is politics. Politics also requires debate so these old and no longer relevant anti-science authors have got to move aside and their nonsense has got to pass a higher level of peer-review than medical journals seem capable of… money, money, money. Peer-review within health journals is highly suspect in their lack of transparent robust discussion of evidence presented.
This nonsense article was supported by a US taxpayer funded NIH translational research grant. See:
The article fails to meet every one of the grant objectives – it is off the rails. How did it even get published?
As Dr. Dan Cameron points out, these authors have been masters of “Fake News”.