Lyme Controversy

This is both a disturbing and an exciting time in the world of Lyme disease. Disturbing because the medical and public health communities have failed to stem the steady increase in the number of cases of Lyme disease over the last 2 decades – with an expansion of over 35% between 2006-2007 alone. Exciting because advances in medical technology are leading to breakthroughs in how we understand this disease.

November 13, 2009 (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania) — Two separate analyses presented here at the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) 47th Annual Meeting revealed that most of the society’s treatment guidelines are based on expert opinion, nonrandomized trials, and case studies.

Medical doctors have a great deal to contribute to public policy debates. But the systems that have developed within the profession and within government stifle public debate among doctors and attempt to create a phoney unity that works against the public interest, as we are slowly learning.

Evidence Based Medicine began as a “bottom-up” paradigm that taught medical residents to search the literature for the best available evidence and to critically appraise it for making patient care decisions.

Few diseases have aroused more emotional attention in the press and the public than Lyme disease.

The recently published monkey study by Embers and colleagues regarding the persistence of Lyme after antibiotic treatment is important for two distinct reasons.

The CDC clinical criteria for Lyme Disease which exist for the purpose of monitoring the rate of Lyme disease nationally are quite narrowly defined in order to ensure a high degree of specificity in the diagnosis