NEWS: Authors of IDSA guidelines call Lyme advocates "anti-science" and "a threat to public health."
Writing in the British medical journal "The Lancet," several members of the IDSA Lyme treatment guidelines panel (you know, those ones found to have all those financial conflicts-of-interest), along with some of their cronies, have some uncomplimentary things to say about the Lyme advocacy community.
From the Lancet:
Antiscience and ethical concerns associated with advocacy of Lyme disease
Dr Paul G Auwaerter MD a 
,
Summary
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.
Well, I wondered what kind of "public education" campaign they would develop after the survey study by Dr Macauda Krause et al. concluded that too many people believed in chronic lyme.
I suppose their first strategy will be an ever larger push in the medical community to throw us into the anti-science camp and say we (not the disease) are the public health threat. Scare off any MDs/Researchers who are perhaps "swayed", by our "psuedoscientific" evidence of disease persistence.
Interesting given that some of us have post graduate degrees in science or were medical workers before we got sick….
Hopefully they are irrefutably proven wrong and this article is tattooed on the authors' foreheads.
Yeah I know it's not going to happen, but I can dream.
I would agree if the authors could prove their thesis. But the lack of data plays in their hands, and they are obviously not willing to do a wider research. So again: if they do research with a greater number of patients (more than 50, better 1000), then I will think about it. Everything else done and published by these authors is un-scientific.