Saturday, 28 April 2012


The Lancet on Antiscience and Ethical concerns associated with Advocacy of Lyme Disease link to details of this here

The Lancet has published three responses :-
 1. Stella Huyshe-Shires Chair of Lyme Disease Action  here

In which she points out 'The British Infection Association has listened to criticism of the position statement and is now collaborating with LDA and a Department of Health funded body, the James Lind Alliance, on documentation of the uncertainties in treatment and diagnosis of Lyme disease. Despite the prevailing view that patients do not understand the issues, some clinicians are prepared to work with patients. We might have had greater clinician participation in this project had it not been for reports such as Auwaerter and co-workers', but, in the end, evidence will triumph over institutional bias.'

 2. Carl Tuttle  here

 'Paul Auwaerter and colleagues are among the handful of individuals who have controlled the Lyme disease research agenda for decades and ultimately which data have been reported.'

 3. Prof Perronne University Hospital Garches Paris. here

'Recommended serological tests for Lyme disease vary greatly in sensitivity' 'Another difficulty is that, although many variants and new species of Borrelia are regularly discovered, most commercial tests rely on the original Massachusetts B31 isolate of Borrelia burgdorferi, used since 1982. However, Scottish experts were able to improve the sensitivity of their tests with local strains of Borrelia spp'
and also
'Additionally, peer-reviewed studies show that other bacterial, viral, or parasitic infections might contribute to syndromes associated with Lyme disease or its mimics. Microbial involvement is being actively investigated in other well known but poorly understood conditions. For example, the possible role of spirochetes, including B burgdorferi, has become the subject of research into the pathophysiology of Alzheimer's disease'

Perronne references Miklossy's work which is important especially as Alzheimer's is such a serious Health Care problem here

Prof Perronne is an ID and Tropical Diseases doctor and works in a state hospital, not privately and yet he is finding the approach of treating patients with Lyme Disease on long term antibiotics is beneficial. He was recently interviewed on French TV along with Prof Luc Montagnier (Nobel Laureate for his work with HIV) - interestingly the program was about treating Autism with antibiotics. A study done by 10 doctors in France treating 200 children with Autism on long term antibiotics and 4 out of 5 recovered - further research is to follow. Some, but not all of the children had Lyme Disease. A connection between Lyme and some cases of Autism has also been made by doctors in US.  TV interview here 

There was a reply from the authors of the Antiscience paper trotting out their predictable views and although they sight the study done by Cottle at Liverpool, that study is subjective and inconclusive, as there is no test that can prove a patient doesn't have Lyme. here

Thank you to the Lancet for giving others a voice, I was disappointed that you published such a thoroughly opinionated and un scientific article in the first place and have often wondered why?


  1. I am glad The Lancet gave people an opportunity to post rebuttals to the original letter by Auwaerter et al. What I find unusual is that someone from ILADS didn't come forward to offer their own rebuttal. It would be beneficial if they responded with scientific evidence to support their own claims and point out where Auwaerter et al are flawed.

  2. Who knows perhaps they did - it took about 9 months I am told to publish the three responses and then only once Auwaeter et al had produced a reply - Auwaeter et al seemed to have struggled to find much that is helpful and after all the Liverpool study was in itself rather subjective and inconclusive - there is no test that can rule out Lyme Disease but plenty of problems with the tests they would have used.