Review Panel Leaves Controversial Lyme Disease Guidelines Unchanged

Reader Comments
Back to article

The phrasing of the title for this article is unfortunate. It implies that the guidelines themselves are controversial. They are not. The controversy is the treatment of people with prolonged courses of IV antibiotics. The review reaffirms that this is unsupported by the available information. The review panel's conclusions regarding the lack of benefit and unjustified risk to were more adamant than the initial IDSA guidelines.
Tediously predictable is the outraged quotes from providers who have a very substantial financial benefit from providing these controversial treatments.
Eventually with patience and good thoughtful patient care we can move beyond this issue. Think of the Ebstein-Barr virus - chronic fatigue proponents of the last century.

Marc Tomberlin, MD of WA 6:41PM April 22, 2010

Dr. Stricker is not particularly good at thinking. This issue received the objective evaluation he desires and that evaluation produced a conclusion based on the available evidence. Anyone who claims to be logical or rational or the least bit scientific is obligated to agree with that conclusion. To reject the findings of the panel is to reject science and embrace belief. Belief is wonderful in its own way, but it is not science. Good doctors do not believe anything, they either know something or they do not know something.
To illustrate: No matter how much a mathematician is paid by the number 5 cartel when he or she adds 2+2 the answer will be 4. It is not a vote or an opinion, it is a fact.

Edward Olchowski of MA 6:28PM April 22, 2010