Tuesday, 23 August 2011


Antiscience and Ethical concerns associated with Advocacy of Lyme Disease

Advocacy for Lyme disease has become an increasingly important part of an antiscience movement that denies both the viral cause of AIDS and the benefits of vaccines and that supports unproven (sometimes dangerous) alternative medical treatments. Some activists portray Lyme disease, a geographically limited tick-borne infection, as a disease that is insidious, ubiquitous, difficult to diagnose, and almost incurable; they also propose that the disease causes mainly non-specific symptoms that can be treated only with long-term antibiotics and other unorthodox and unvalidated treatments. Similar to other antiscience groups, these advocates have created a pseudoscientific and alternative selection of practitioners, research, and publications and have coordinated public protests, accused opponents of both corruption and conspiracy, and spurred legislative efforts to subvert evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed science. The relations and actions of some activists, medical practitioners, and commercial bodies involved in Lyme disease advocacy pose a threat to public health.

No prizes for guessing the authors of this poorly presented article.link here
A threat to Public Health? not sure that the authors of the many science articles I have posted on this blog would concur with their Summary.

Now what we really need is more of the following:-

  • Findings that shed new light on the possible pathogenesis of a disease or an adverse effect
  • Lyme disease following a dog bite - was there a tick?
David Owen


Lyme disease is the most common tick borne infection in temperate zones and the reported incidence of the condition is increasing. Erythema migrans is one of the few clinical signs of Lyme disease and is usually indicative of recently acquired infection. A case is presented of Lyme disease with erythema migrans which followed shortly after a dog bite. The author is not aware of any previously reported similar case. The author considers that the development of Lyme disease in the case was most likely due to a coincidental tick bite which was not noticed by the patient but an alternative possibility is that the disease was activated from a latent form. Patients with Lyme disease may not give a history of tick bite and clinicians should be aware of this.

Link here


  1. I just posted a rant about this Lancet letter.

    When are they going to get the point? All this advocacy and letter writing, doctors conference, and funding our own research came out of the fact that they haven't adequately addressed patients' needs and concerns. They failed patients, and they continue to do so when they write a screed such as this one.

  2. I agree Camp. Where is the Science in this Lancet article?
    Time we left the IDSA et al to their Lyme disease and concentrated on what for many is an antibiotic responsive illness following a tick bite or as Horowitz suggested MCIDS.
    Too much time wasted arguing with deceitful people, time to fund more of our own research.