Talk:Lyme disease/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 5


Good job! The information on this page seems mostly complete. As a side note, one might mention that there is great controversy surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. It is the opinion of the Lyme disease community that a patient who suspects infection should seek antibiotic treatments at all costs (i.e. see several doctors if necessary).--Missruth 01:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article is factually correct. Indeed there is a lot of misinformation in the 'Lyme disease community'. Axl 14:11, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New additions

I think the information inserted about tick life cycles can safely be moved to relevant pages about Ixodes spp. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have asked (talk · contribs) to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR[1]. If there is no rapid improvement I will revert. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The editor made an edit after I left the message, yet did not revise his/her edits. I have reverted all the material, and await further argumentation here. JFW | T@lk 16:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

More tagslapping

An anon listed this for {{cleanup-rewrite}}. This is not a good cleanup candidate, nor is it really in need for rewriting. It needs some sources, copyediting etc, but the tag is unnecessary. JFW | T@lk 10:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the O83 ICD-10 code as this is incorrect. The correct code needs to be inserted. I've put question mark in the meantime as the previous incorrect code would just be too confusing (it was related to obstetric problems! I hope someone can sort this problem out.

Thanks for the catch. I've fixed this (the code is A69.2, as documented here. --Arcadian 16:14, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

No how to info or medical advice

Please refer to WP:NOT which states:

Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s.

It is a really important policy. This article needs to be edited to remove all medical and how to info.--A Y Arktos 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

As long as the content is descriptive and not prescriptive, it is not a violation of WP:NOT. The deleted content has been restored. --Arcadian 20:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I removed specific brand name drugs mentioned and how to remove tick info - not merely descriptive in my view but prescriptive. I feel very strongly on this issue and therefore recommend it have discussion from several editors before changes, including reference for your view that medical info is OK if not prescriptive.--A Y Arktos 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed new sentence from introduction

"It is also debaitable whether Lyme disease can be passed on from a mother to a child." (1) Contradicts existing description in Transmission section. (2) Rare mode already in Transmission section. AvB ÷ talk 08:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Debaitable? It is a disease of the blood, although I do not know if it can be passed from father to offspring; the mother gives birth, and their son/daughter is their blood. It is obvious that the disease would carry on, even if a milder or maybe an even stronger strain.

 Big Boss Ocelot  18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

We seem to be in agreement here. Placental transmission was mentioned in the Transmission section as a documented possibility. "Debatable" was contradictory. The info has now been sourced and can be found under Congenital Lyme Disease. Sexual transmission is now mentioned in the "Other modes of transmission" section (unsourced). AvB ÷ talk 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I respect your views and I appretiate you pointing out certain aspects. But there is still much that needs to be researched. Please see the test below I posted. I claim to know only what I know, I am simply upset at the fact that someone had the nerve to say that this disease didn't even exist and people are simply lazy, I will admit I have been lazy in the past; and every once in a while, but who isn't? You get tired, you relax, or at least want to. Personally, in my POV; everyone suffers form fatigue, even if they are not ill. Job's and life itself is stressfull, sometimes you need to relax; it is just unfortunate that in my condition I have to relax more then others. I have tried 8 hours of sleep and yet I need 12. Although some people would see that as a luxury, I do not. I would rather wake up early, go to work, bust my ass, come home, and have a reason to feel fatigued, instead of just sitting here. But I respect you and your input, you are a very knowledgable person and I hope you can help end this dispute with me. Have a great day!

 Big Boss Ocelot  20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know that we have a dispute. It's true that someone said that on this talk page; it was obviously incorrect and I responded to it, asking for specifics. The anon did not respond so to me it looks like trolling. If I were you I'd simply ignore it. Did you read my story (below)? Today is my 28th "anniversary". We're in the same boat... AvB ÷ talk 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It would appear that we are friend; I am sorry to hear, it is indeed one that takes on water very quickly, to say the least. But the {{Tag}} on the main page lead me to believe that it still was; is it, or is it not? I am a bit confused.

 Big Boss Ocelot  21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. When someone removed the NPOV tag placed by Frpaneloux, I reinserted it since the issue had not been discussed in full and no consensus had been reached or even attempted. I have not been involved in the dispute but User:Light_current suggested that Frpaneloux edit the article to resolve any concerns; User:Davidruben wrote to Frpaneloux (see User_talk:Frpaneloux) and User:Bapb defended the current article. Nothing was heard from Frpaneloux in over a week. Three days ago the single line "Please continue negotiating criticisms. The dispute is not resolved. 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)" was posted by an anonymous editor. That isn't good enough for me; there is no dispute if the disputing editor does not even try to edit the article or discuss his/her specific concerns instead of some general criticisms. I think 8 days is long enough so I'll remove the tag now. AvB ÷ talk 22:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you my friend, that just made my day. Although I had been wondering the same thing and if I should remove the tag myself, but was still not 100% certain if that would be the best course of action, considering I wasn't sure who started the dispute in the first place. And yes you are right, if the person doesn't even want to continue his claim in regards of disputing the article; then you are right in removing the tag, thank you and God bless.

 Big Boss Ocelot  17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

False positive results

An anon inserted references about Lyme serology[2]. The remainder of the article is still completely unsourced and open to misinterpretation.

Lyme is one of those conditions that people self-diagnose over the internet with the help of unscrupulous sites that suggest that the CDC criteria are too strict and that most labs perform the wrong serology. I wonder if that phenomenon (Lyme instead of CFS/fibromyalgia/MCS etc) has been studied. JFW | T@lk 20:54, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It has, to some extent: PMID 8749620, PMID 8644768, PMID 10522896, PMID 9362985, PMID 15174234, see also the Emedicine CFS article. All in all there is little information indicating that many people have been misdiagnosed either way using standard serology. However, it remains possible that insofar as "sero-negative and CSF-negative neuroborreliosis" exists it may end up as a CFS dx if also lacking typical Lyme signs like ECM or ACA. Last time I looked, supposed problems with the standard serology had not been disproven. Available info doesn't seem very informative regarding "Post Lyme disease" which mainly differs from CFS in that the patient has been cured from Lyme disease before (or along with) developing the constellation of symptoms typical of CFS (but see PMID 9362985).
I belong in the latter group. After my retro-diagnosis in 1994 with CFS from 1978, I came across Lyme Disease info on the Internet in 1996 and immediately made a self-diagnosis. I remembered a 1975 bull's eye rash which expanded for weeks until treated with 6.5 days of amoxycillin. My medical records contained an exact description of a classical ECM rash by my GP, plus the note that she didn't know what it was. Together with my ongoing ill-health, sufficient info to have my self-dx checked by an infectious diseases expert and a neurologist (the full works including brain MRI and lumbar puncture) in 1997. Results: no evidence of current illness, clear evidence of past borreliosis (IgG, but not IgM, titers elevated). I also talked my GP into giving me a trial treatment with antibiotics just to be sure but, as predicted, it made no difference whatsoever. I went back to my normal role of underconsumer of medical services. AvB ÷ talk 15:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


Chronic Lyme Disease does not exist and makes a mockery of real illness. Lazy people need to take responsibility for their own issues, and not blame it on some illness like they just 'get better'. Easy answers don't exist and people have to work on their problems. How are legal and medical authorities tolerating this? It's exploitation on every front. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

So, you got any sources other than your own opinion that state the same? As someone being of exactly the opposite opinion, I'd be quite interested in a neutral section covering the opinions and sources of both opinions on this matter. --Conti| 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC) is pretty sobering. You could also try any Infectious Disease specialist, and no, they are not poorly educated on Lyme. Opinions stating that they are not "Lyme-literate" are of the same vein as that nonsense "CDC is supressing this" mindset JFW mentioned below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
Thanks for the link, it's interesting to read. Well, as for asking specialists, the problem is that one is telling me I'm perfectly healthy, the next one is telling me I'm seriously ill. Now the one group tells me the first specialist is just a "Lyme-illiterate", and the other group tells me the latter specialist is one of those guys that try to sell me as much antibiotics as they can. I try not to listen to much to both groups as they are both a bit of extreme in their POV.
I partially reverted your edit, as some of the changes you made were way too POV and unsourced in my opinion, I just hope this won't end in an edit war. I'd really like to find sources for all the things mentioned here. I'm really interested in the infection from the mother to the fetus for example, as I (and two of my siblings) am a living proof that it is possible. Or it's just a huge coincidence, who knows? A few other things:
  • Setences like "Lyme disease has skin symptoms and arthritis that are usually present" are just not true, there are many other symptoms, even not counting the disputable neurological ones.
  • The "bull's eye" rash does not always appear during an infection, that should be mentioned.
  • I don't know much about the PCR test, but the current wording sounded alot more neutral to me, so I reverted there, too.
  • "Treatment of confirmed Lyme disease requires a 10 day course of oral antibiotics." The source given there requires a login, it's never a good idea to link to such sites. Treatment depends largely on how strong the infection is, someone who has the disease for years isn't much helped by 10 days of antibiotics, so the statement is quite misleading.
So, even if we take aside the very controversial things like neurological symptoms and chronic illness (both of which I seem to suffer from), there are still alot of disputed things in the article.
I openly admit that I do have very non-neutral personal thoughts about this topic, tests I made tell me that I'm currently ill and not at the same time, depending on which test to believe. So I informed myself a bit about the disease to find out that there are pretty much two extreme groups, the one saying that the disease is very minor and easily curable, the other says that millions of people suffer from it without knowing it. We should not write either of these opinions in this article, so please don't change the article in that way, like I try and stick to the facts as well. --Conti| 01:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I suspect it is going to be very hard to document this in a neutral fashion, but I'm all for it. Chronic Lyme exists, but probably not in the form that internet forums and self-help organisations suggest. For one thing, many of them are vocally against standardisation of the serology panel by the CDC. Phrases such as "CDC is suppressing this" and "send your blood work to that" are very common and are mild cause for worry. JFW | T@lk 23:25, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've gone over the article and updated it based on how 10 years' worth of following Lyme, CFS and Fibromyalgia literature as a patient has congealed in my foggy brain. Does this alleviate any of the concerns expressed above? AvB ÷ talk 13:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing personal with anyone, but chronic symptoms easily go away with catastrophically expensive treatment because they never existed in the first place. If there is going to be a page for Lyme we should make it honest and factual; the page we have now is harmful and in terms of valid medical information, is unlawful. The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

The article needs some attention, but I can't find the problems you describe. Could you be a bit more specific? Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 18:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

As regards the first comment in this section, I have had Lyme disease since I was 10 (I am now 20), I am still on antibiotics, I still have a bloody poor immune system, I still have the arthritis from the disease, I still have twitches and a variety of other symptoms (and various tests, including some which are now illegal in the great state of NY) to prove that I have the disease. As regards the lazy comment I have a 3.5 GPA in college, I doubt that is the reward of laziness. I suspect that if I lacked this "fake" disease that I could very well have a higher GPA, but this is the hand that fate, the deity, etc has handed me. Those who state that chronic Lyme is fake, made up, etc ad nausium personally offend me, for I know the results and pain that this disease can cause.

One more comment, I have had IV antibiotics for about a year from 2001-2002, I felt better as a result, but as I mentioned above I still suffer from symptoms but I am infinitely better than I once was. I will always have this disease but I work hard to achieve my goals, but some of you lot feel it proper to indicate that we are either "lazy" or nuts. Those beliefs are absolute rubbish, and that is from personal experience. 04:40, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


The references were previously out of order of their mention in the text and with no forward or backlinks between main article and reference sections. Furthermore any in-line reference came up as a numerical number that bore no relationship to the numbers in the references section (being of a different system). Finally no web-links were provided for the referenced articles. I have therefore added PubMed links, and used the new cite:ref system to mark references where they occur in the text. The "< references / >" then flushes the individual references into the correct sequence and allows for duplicates.

It should now be much easier to add additional references when required, as no manual consideration need be given to ensure they are listed in the correct sequence. David Ruben Talk 05:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Lyme controversy

I am impressed by the number and depth of recent & ongoing edits by User:Bapb; hence my raising a suggestion here, rather than cause an unintentional edit-conflict. I suggest moving the Lyme controversy section to the end of the article, not because of its unimportance, but because it will make more sense to the overall structure of the article (it currently comes before any description of "accepted" symptoms, diagnosis, treatment) and it will help the "lay-reader" to then understand some of the more complex issues discussed in the "controversy" section. David Ruben Talk 04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I was actually thinking the very same thing, and will make the change. Thanks for the getting the cite:ref system going, by the way - it's obviously a big help. Bapb 05:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Life Cycle

There's no information here on the life cycle of Borrelia burgdorferi, which appears to be quite complex and interesting. The role of alternate hosts of the disease would also be good to include, especially in the context of control of the disease. It's pretty far out of my field, though, so I'd like someone else to do it. Toiyabe 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Employment and Lyme

Has there ever been a study or believable indication of whether people who claim to have Lyme actually held jobs even before "symptoms" appeared? 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No study per-say, but I myself have Chronic Lyme and I did hold a Job at blockbuster, although it brought to disease out of remission along with being in a band at the same time. As long as you let your job know, and obtain a doctors note that you need reasonable accomidations, then you will be able to pace yourself at work, or anything else that is your profession.

 Big Boss Ocelot  17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


I thought this was named after Lyme Bay in Dorset, UK. Thats what the inhabitants there say 8-? --Light current 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

It was named after the Connecticut town: see PMID 4011504, PMID 2644687, and [3]. For a more detailed history as well as a fascinating read, check out The Widening Circle written by Polly Murray, one of the Lyme, CT mothers who struggled for years to get doctors to recognize the disease in the early 1970s. 15:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


As someone who recently wrote a case study on Lyme Disease and its diagnosis controversy, I naturally first checked for it on Wikipedia. And I was appalled with the blatantly biased point of view from which the entire article was written (most notably in the controversy section, but persistent throughout.) I have now completed my case study, but I felt it my duty to come back here and warn any other user that may stumble upon this article and prevent them from being misled.

Please note that I am writing this from the perspective of an unbiased academic researcher. There are two basic sides in this controversy: the medical expert side which includes all scholarly, peer-reviewed publications versus a very small, but vocal minority are generally those who claim to be afflicted with chronic Lyme disease. This entire article consistently and irresponsibly presents the voice of the latter as the closing word in all arguments. From the discussion of the false-positive vs. false negative to the therapy options, arguments from the perspective of "chronic sufferers" of Lyme disease are given equal (if not, stronger) weight over the verifiable scientific community.

Simply put, this article violates THREE of the FOUR policy positions of what a wikipedia article should and should not be: 1) It is not written from a neutral point of view; 2) The verifiable parts of the article are given less weight to the original arguments that are made; and 3) I would not be surprised if the author(s) of this article are members of the Lyme disease community, because it is about as soapbox-y as any article could get. Wikipedians should feel disgraced with it's presence as is.

Frpaneloux 06:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Therefore you are the ideal person to edit it to remove POV, quote references and remove soapbox material. 8-)--Light current 11:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I wonder where you would situate someone like Brian Fallon of Columbia University in this controversy. If Fallon, an Associate Professor of Clinical Psychiatry, is really just part of a fringe minority that no one takes seriously, why did the National Institutes of Health award him a 4.7 million dollar grant to study chronic Lyme disease? Can you explain why we should not consider him part of the so-called “medical expert side”?
Or Sam Donta, retired Professor of Medicine and Infectious Diseases at Boston University? Donta, after all, was an original member of the IDSA committee drafting guidelines for Lyme. He chose to remove his name from the guidelines because he disagreed with the statement regarding late and chronic Lyme disease (Medscape article - Lyme Disease Controversies). The fact of this significant dissent is utterly ignored by the IDSA (and apparently you as well) in a quest to characterize the debate as all but settled, apart from the actions of a few angry patients. This is a clear example of the highly politicized history of Lyme, where the goal of scientific consensus was conveniently and quietly discarded, and we see the rise of these rhetorical claims (amid oft-repeated assertions of authority and objectivity) that “all the experts” are suddenly in agreement.
It may indeed be that researchers like Fallon, Donta, and others cited in the article form a minority within the academic community, though they have held positions in academia and published in respected peer-reviewed journals (in contrast to the inexplicable assertion that “all scholarly, peer-reviewed publications” support one view). But more importantly, in terms of the balance of the article, is the fact that large numbers (perhaps even a majority) of physicians in Lyme endemic areas in the U.S. are sympathetic to the broader Lyme perspective, as the article documents (PMID 8740119, PMID 8194286). Given this fact, it is patently inaccurate to say that the broader definition of Lyme is held only by “a very small, but vocal minority... who claim to be afflicted with chronic Lyme disease.” And that is why the broader definition deserves to be fully explicated in the article, along with the IDSA’s view.
Wikipedia is not the place to debate the controversy, but it is a place to document it fairly and accurately. The article already makes clear that the majority of public health officials and organizations like the IDSA are on the more ‘conservative’ side, in keeping with NPOV. Curiously, your commentary would suggest that this conservative side prefers the scientific debate not be publicly acknowledged at all – eg. pretending Fallon's research doesn’t exist, pretending the 100+ peer-reviewed references in the article don’t exist, asserting that the controversy exists only through the rants of a few angry activist-sufferers. A comparison of the rhetorical strategies of the two "sides" would be very interesting, though it probably doesn't belong in the article.
So rather than relying on rhetoric, why don’t we all stick to the research? If you have specific objections – eg. if a cited reference in the article does not say what is claimed, then by all means, improve upon the article. If you know of another clinical trial of long-term antibiotic treatment, please add it. If there are published defenses of the Klempner study against the cited criticisms, then let’s document them. Etc. --Bapb 16:26, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Please continue negotiating criticisms. The dispute is not resolved. 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Copied from Lyme_disease#Removed_new_sentence_from_introduction:
(...) When someone removed the NPOV tag placed by Frpaneloux, I reinserted it since the issue had not been discussed in full and no consensus had been reached or even attempted. I have not been involved in the dispute but User:Light_current suggested that Frpaneloux edit the article to resolve any concerns; User:Davidruben wrote to Frpaneloux (see User_talk:Frpaneloux) and User:Bapb defended the current article. Nothing was heard from Frpaneloux in over a week. Three days ago the single line "Please continue negotiating criticisms. The dispute is not resolved. 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)" was posted by an anonymous editor. That isn't good enough for me; there is no dispute if the disputing editor does not even try to edit the article or discuss his/her specific concerns instead of some general criticisms. I think 8 days is long enough so I'll remove the tag now. AvB ÷ talk 22:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Another? anon reinserted the tag with the edit summary "(rv - nothing done to remove bias in diction and argument presentation)" but once again without responding here on the talk page, making this a pretty one-sided discussion. I've once again removed the tag; summary:"(rv anon please discuss on the talk page and/or improve the article. current consensus is that the NPOV tag is not warranted.)". Anyone who doesn't agree please respond to the points raised above before reinserting the tag. AvB ÷ talk 13:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

From a Victim

Hello, my name is Cory, and I suffer from Chronic Lyme Disease. I was bitten back in 1988; while mowing the lawn in my back yard in Howell New Jersey, now I have read over this dispute and personally I am disgusted. I suffered for 10 years and almost died; due to improper treatment, doctors telling me it was all in my head, and not being able to find anyone who knew what it was yet. I am not lazy; I do what I have to do, and I take offense to that comment. I push myself as hard as I can when I put my mind to something, and do you know what I get? A week in bed! I have tried job after job, even the simplist job's such as BlockBuster. But the Lyme cripples you depending on your case, there are different strains of the virus and I have been bitten twice; once in 88, and again in 1999. The first time I was bitten; I had a very visable bullzeye rash on my left knee. I was taken to the hospital a week (I think, I was young) later by my parents and I was first subject of the pic line, an IV that was inserted into your arm near the bicep. The tube lead in my vein all the way up around my shoulder, and stopped short of my heart. The medicene I there-after needed had to be kept cold (I believe it was called rosephen). It is a very strong antibiotic, therefor could not be taken orally or by any other means. In Lamen terms: It needs to be taken with Acidophilus, to counteract a yeast infection, along with the good bacteria, it also destroys the good. This balances it out). I was treated for two weeks when it should have been two months. Shortly after the symptons started showing up again, I would get white as a ghost and pass out doing simply nothing. I developed nervous ticks which was later to be found Tourretts syndrome, also followed by depression. I was completely, and undeniably fine before all of this. Years went by and I suffered because of a move to FLA when I was 11, doctors down there had apparently never even heard of it yet, so I had to endure; until we moved back up to New Jersey in 1995. A few years went by and finally we found a doctor who did a Lyme Urine Antigen test, the results (As she put it) were through the roof. She placed me on the same IV (A more modern version Thank God), and within two months of proper treatment, I felt brand new!. A few years went by and I was still recovering, but I graduated High School and I have my Diploma; not something you would expect from a lazy person huh? I even joined a band for a little over a year, we wrote a lot of good music; played lots of shows, and had a really fun time. It nearly killed me; I gave it my all, and I never missed a practice or slacked off at any time. But it brought it back out of remission. I went back to my doctor, she did (what they do now) a blood test. And yet again, it was back. There IS NO cure as of yet, one can only hope. But if you go to a Doctor that knows what he/she is doing, get the proper test done, you will notice that it is an immune disorder disease. I will be editing this post tomorrow when I find my blood results; but my immune system is (this is mearly an example, not fact) around 20% as to what it should be. It can also affect you neurologically and mentally (Reason for the T-Syndrome and Depression, once I was treated, the ticks went away and I felt like me again). But yet again because of the band, straining myself and pushing too hard; it got to the point where my joints would ache, my knees would swell, I was tired even after a full nights sleep, so eventually I left.

My Doctor's husband died from it, it is NOT (As someone put it) being lazy, it is not fake, it is not a facade, it is not something someone made up! It is a real disease and disorder. Aside from attacking your immune system, it can be known to mimic other diseases. There is a research grant for a reason, it exists! You would think that people in general, especially wikipedian's; would have a little more common respect for this article. If you want the proof, come take my blood! And look for yourself! (that is, if you even know what you are looking at.) I am not asking for sympathy, in fact I loath it. I sit here in bed day after day for two months, when I like to go out and do things. You think I enjoy this? You honestly think I am having fun sitting here withering away into nothing?! Take a good long look at someone you may know to have lyme, there are different degree's, and there are people who may have it and not even know it. But in my case, and other's like me, to dispute this fact is disrespectfull, degrading, and basically discarding us like scum of society when in fact we are just very ill. You know what I say to those people? Fuck you. And don't you dare even think about taking that out, wikipedians have free speach; and so do Americans. And guess what, I am both. But aside from that, open your eyes and concider the fact, that this is something serious! I haven't had a normal life since I was 8 years old, and I take care of myself as best I can. I help my friends out with whatever I can, and I bust my ass when I need to whatever it is that needs to be done! Even if I am stuck in bed for a week! I see nothing wrong with this article, besides the fact that information should be supplied directly from the orginizations that are researching it. And for those of you who are reading this and thinking (Wow, this guy really needs to get a life); go crawl into a well wooded area, find a lyme tick, and let it bite you. You will know when you are bitten when he jumps off (for seemingly no apparent reason, I mean hell; they are blood suckers right? Why not stay and get all the juice you can?!)We'll see how you feel in a few weeks, then come back and let us know. Personally I think this dispute should be resolved immidiately, I am calling my doctor first thing tomorrow morning; getting all the facts as to the research that is being conducted, and possibly contacting these orginization's myself, so that they are aware of this dispute. She was and is a major part of it, before and after the death of her husband. She saved me from dying, and I trust her with my life, wouldn't you?

 Big Boss Ocelot  09:22, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite a story. You're a victim of misdiagnosis. And you're quite right in requiring others to refrain from blanket accusations of malingering by faking a specific disease (or of being a hypochondriac, which is a serious psych disorder in itself that won't go away if the patient is called names). Apart from other things, there is no reason to single out Lyme Disease; certain other diseases are much easier to fake (e.g. back pain) or fear (e.g. cancer).
To put things into perspective: There are doctors who sometimes incorrectly diagnose psych problems in patients that in reality have Lyme Disease. Among these patients, many accept the verdict and are started on psychotherapy, essentially a wild goose chase that will not bring relief. Others have correctly self-diagnosed, do not accept the diagnosis and seek to help themselves or find a "Lyme-knowledgeable doctor". Still others incorrectly blame Lyme Disease for what in reality are their own psych problems. There are Lyme Disease patients who are not diagnosed correctly until the disease has become chronic and quite a few of them don't respond to standard treatment. There are all kinds of problems and that is not a good thing. A lot of work needs to be done (e.g. research, advocacy, recognition for the likes of Burrascano, better tests). However, awareness of the disease (among GPs and the population at large) is such that by now a great many Lyme Disease patients are diagnosed early and treated correctly, most of whom recover uneventfully. AvB ÷ talk 09:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, a lot of work does need to be done, it was late last night and upon coming across the article I was sorely infuriated. So I appologize for any rudeness and / or unenthical behaviour. But I do suffer form many of the symptoms (fatigue, muscle pain (myalgia), joint pain, with frank arthritis, neuropathy (numbness, tingling, burning, itching, oversensitivity), tremor, muscle twitching, vision problems (eg. double vision), sensitivity to light motion, hyperacusis (severe sensitivity to sound & vibration) But I also play bass for the past 14 years, that is the one thing I don't mind! hahaha. vestibular symptoms (balance; inner/middle ear), seizures, Mild startle reaction, panic attacks, depression, Short-term memory loss, sleep disturbance, tachycardia (too-rapid heartbeat), nausea or vomiting, immune suppression. So you can understand my (mildly prevoced) outburst. I am currently starting up annother music project, and instead of shows; plan to make a studio band out of it, until we get to the point to where I am able to do what is able to be done (eg. shows / touring), safely and being able to pace myself. A band is much like a relationship, except between 3 - 5 + people. You must work with and for each other, and it is a hard buisness to break into. But if I can find people who understand the fact that I barely have any physical strength, then touring and shows should not be a problem as long as I do what I can, and take it easy when I need to. It is somewhat a shame to be pampered as such doing a profession such as this. But if it is what must be done, then so be it.
My point is; Lyme Disease can cripple you, but if you take it easy and pace yourself; not over-do it and take proper care of yourself, you can acheive anything. Even in simple work places, obtain a doctors note that simply let's your work know you need reasonable accomidations and perhaps need to sit down and rest once in a while. So what if you don't do as much as everyone else? There's a reason for it, you are ill. As you said friend, there are doctors out there that missdiagnose, and perhaps would better learn something from this dispute and article itself. There seem to be a number of tests now to make sure you have what you have. For two years after treatment I was feeling great and thought I was invinsible, but I was wrong and pushed myself too far. I just want to urge everyone that if you feel any of these symptoms, please go make sure, it can't hurt. I have located my medical results and I will list the example of the blood work below. And I can not get in touch with my doctor so I will continue to try as well. I thank you for your support friend, one can only hope that this article will remain and some day no longer be a dispute.

 Big Boss Ocelot  18:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


The following is the results from my lab test results

  • Patient
    • Name: Friedel, Cory
    • Age: 25 / 1
    • Sex: M
      • Address and phone # I prefer not to release.
  • Clinical Information
    • Physician ID: Eiras M
      • Also not releasing other personal information.
    • Lab: LA ViroMed, 6101 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9018
      • Director: Steven Anderson M PhD.
    • Lab: RN LabCorp Raritan, 69 First Avene, Raritan, NJ 08869-0000
      • Director: Irene Isaac V MD.
  • Test: ABs.CD8-CD57+ Lymphs
    • Result: 30 L /ul
    • Limit: 60 - 360
      • Your immune system
  • Test: White Blood Cell (WBC) Count
    • Result: 3.7 L /x10E3/uL
    • Limits: 4.0 - 10.5
  • Test: Glucose, Serum
    • Restul: 55 L mg/dl
    • Limits: 65 - 99
      • This is not always but can be related to lyme disease, hypoglicimia (Spelling) is low blood sugar. Aside from Acide Reflux, having low blood sugar causes a huge problem; one requires you not to eat so much, and the other requires you to eat frequently to replenish protien that produces Glucose.
  • Test: Lyme, Western Bolt, Serum / Lyme AB IGG by WB
    • Result: P58 Ab. Present
      • This means the disease, is in fact in my blood.
      • Note: An equivocal of positive EIA result followed by a negative Wester Bolt Result, is considered NEGATIVE. An equivocal or positive EIA result followed by a positive Western Bolt is considered POSITIVE by the CDC. I am not a doctor, so if anyone would like to further explaine the results, please feel free.
Additional information may be found at

 Big Boss Ocelot  19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


While I can see how the word "epidemic" in the ecology section might appear POV at first glance, I propose restoring it - perhaps with a geographic qualifier - because the word is not controversial in endemic areas in the U.S. See PMID 1870248 (NY State Dept. of Health), PMID 16704808 (Yale/CDC pub– ‘conservative’ authors) and PMID 16363174.

A recent New York Times article ["More Awareness, More Cases"] quotes CDC statistics demonstrating that Lyme is still very much on the increase (2005 numbers: 34% increase in Connecticut, 23% increase in New Jersey). The numbers have increased 25-fold in the U.S. since reporting began in 1982. The most recent incidence estimate in the 12 states with the highest incidence is 27.4/100,000, comparable to the current incidence of HIV in the U.S. And if one takes into account the approximately tenfold undercount the CDC admits to (because of poor Lyme reporting practices), this number becomes 274/100,000. In some hyperendemic counties, the number is still ten times higher than this multistate average. (These numbers only include cases that meet CDC criteria, not seronegative or otherwise controversial cases). It’s also easy to verify that the disease is spreading beyond the original focal regions along the coastal northeast. For example, the CDC reports that Lyme spirochetes are now in ticks in the Chicago metro area [[4]]. (I hope to eventually add some of this information to the epidemiology section of the article.)

Incidentally, the fact that several ILADS members are quoted as experts in the [NY Times article] suggests that User:Frpaneloux’s comments under #POV are rather off the mark.

--Bapb 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

"Lyme disease has been reported in 49 of 50 states?" While Lyme has not been reported in Montana, but there is an epidemic of something very similar to Master's Disease/STARI. It is being transmitted by the wood tick. I was told by a physician that although the disease seems to be concentrated in the Yellowstone Valley, it has been found in all areas of the state.

It has been shown that robins can act as the reservoir for the disease. This means they can give it to ticks which pass the disease to other animals or to humans. Robins carried relapsing fever, a closely related disease, and a new tick species to Montana. It was found a cabin located on Wildhorse Island in Flathead Lake, which is not connected to the mainland by road. The island is a state park, and no livestock grazing is allowed. It must be concluded that birds can transport Lyme Disease, and/or the related tick species over great distances.

The kind of tick that carries Lyme disease has been found in Edmonton, Alberta. Out of those 10 ticks, 2 of them were positive for the bacteria.

"Six Parks Canada employees who worked on a tick study last year are all showing symptoms similar to those of Lyme disease." The percentage must be high, as there can't have been that many people doing the study. One would expect people who were sent out do to a tick survey to be taking extreme precautions against tickbites.

The State of Montana has not done a study to determine if new tick species are present since the new disease first appeared in 2001. Dansample 22:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What is the reference for statement about one of fastest growing diseases?

The intro says Lymes Disease "is now one of the fastest growing infectious diseases in the U.S.", and I am wondering what is the source of this information? I've heard people argue about this and would love to have something to reference. Mattisse(talk) 13:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

P.S. The NYTimes article linked above makes it sound like Lyme's Disease is a big problem in that region but not every in the US or the world. Mattisse(talk) 14:10, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The statement that Lyme is one of the fastest growing infectious diseases appears in many places, such as the University of Wisconsin Microbiology Web Textbook. It is based on statistics from the US Centers for Disease Control (CDC).
If you look at the CDC chart, you'll see a steady increase over the years with a very steep increase (40%) in 2002. Then in 2003, there is a drop which does not reflect a true decrease in the number of cases, but rather a change in reporting policy. Connecticut, the state that had the highest rate, ended mandatory lab reporting in 2003, and their rate suddenly dropped by over 3,000 cases (80%) as a result. With the rate in Connecticut continuing to climb ever since, it is widely acknowledged that the drop in 2003 represents an artificial decrease which affected the national numbers. Rhode Island (previously the second highest rate) ended mandatory lab reporting soon after. The only explanation given by officials in both states was that mandatory reporting was too costly. So just as Lyme incidence rates began soaring to new heights, authorities decided that counting cases was no longer important. Aside from this reporting issue, the CDC estimates that Lyme is undercounted by a factor of about 10.
The NY Times article referenced above is from the "NY/In the Region" section of the newspaper which covers regional, not national news (the reason for the lack of mention of other areas). While Lyme incidence rates are highest in the northeastern U.S., it has been reported in 49 states and is on the rise elsewhere. The upper midwest (Michigan, Wisconsin) and California have some notoriously high-risk areas. This year, Lyme bacteria were identified in ticks in Chicago for the first time. --Bapb 23:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I suffer from the same problem now. I've found two references for the lead (Cases of Lyme disease in the United States: locations correlated with distribution of Ixodes dammini., The global distribution of Lyme disease.). I hope we can use them. NCurse work 15:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

These references are fairly old, and Lyme has both spread and been discovered in new areas since then. Here's one CDC report acknowledging serious underreporting (6- to 12-fold in endemic areas), and here's another CDC report that suggests 10-fold underreporting.
From still another CDC report - the Final Report on Notifiable Diseases (2002), it's clear that Lyme was reported in nearly every state in the U.S. that year, and is endemic to varying extents throughout the country.
An interesting comment in The Lancet Infectious Diseases from 2004 cites these reports, which together suggest that the incidence of Lyme in the US may be five times higher than HIV. --Bapb 16:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Epidemiology: Epidemiology of Lyme Disease. NCurse work 15:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Chronic (late) symptons:

Chronic (late) symptoms This sentence needs to be corrected: "More confounding is that patients may present with Lyme Disease and a related disease such as MS."--Lorraine LeBeau 18:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


On whether to add Lyme article to WikiProject Dogs - the article doesn't yet include information on dogs, but perhaps it should. In endemic areas, Lyme is a primary concern for dog owners; it is recognized as potentially chronic and sometimes fatal (less controversy than with humans). The page currently has at least one reference in the microbiology section by Straubinger et al. that specifically pertains to dogs, documenting persistent infection. Would be nice to see more (eg. there's a vaccine available for dogs now, though I don't know much about it) and include in WikiProject Dogs .--Bapb 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't object to information being added on dogs (or other animals, I've heard it can cause problems with horses, too) and lyme disease. I just don't think we should put the WikiProject template on this page. I think these banners should only be added when the respective WikiProject can actually contribute to the whole article, not just a small part of it, otherwise we could have dozens of WikiProject banners on this page. But that's just my personal opinion of course. --Conti| 00:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
I think I misunderstood the intent of the WikiProjects; now I see what you're saying. (Apart from that issue, I hope someone can add content specifically pertaining to dogs.) -Bapb 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Second fastest growing disease after aids

Does this pertain equally to all parts of the country and the world? New York Times article refernce seems parochial. Am I incorrect? Mattisse(talk) 03:39, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

The page states that this pertains to the U.S (not the world). Regarding data within the U.S., the NY Times article is clear that the statement is regarding national data, not regional, even if there are focal areas of higher endemicity.
I do see what you're saying, because the article also states that a small area has almost half the cases in the nation. However this article is from 1990 and since then, CDC data indicate that this is no longer the case. Lyme has since been reported in 49/50 states, with regions of high endemicity throughout the country. The counties (Westchester, Suffolk) noted in the NY Times article no longer have the highest incidence in the country, as the disease continues to spread. Because Lyme has increased significantly in the U.S. since this article was published (as evidence by CDC documents referenced above), I'm comfortable with leaving the statement about being 2nd to AIDS even though the NY Times reference is old. But perhaps this should be discussed more. Bapb 03:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative therapies

I'm no expert in this area, but I made a number of changes in an effort to clean up this paragraph and add proper citations. First, I removed EMF frequency device mention which is based on the work of Royal Rife. There is no citation, and the only reference I was able to locate was a self-published book. (I believe this may have been the link that was there before.) I think the content should be there only if someone can find a decent reference that involves more than self-promotion. I also removed mention of vitamin C killing cancer cells; not only was there no reference, but even if it's true it's irrelevant to the subject. Also removed the comment that it "probably" kills parasites, no reference (and what does "probably" mean)? If someone can document this, then by all means...

I added the salt/vit C protocol, the herb andrographis, and the hyperbaric oxygen therapy information because those are sometimes suggested by alternative practitioners for Lyme, and there are published reports providing at least some kind of rationale based on peer-reviewed research. (The book I listed as a reference for andrographis does list the many peer-reviewed studies which have found the herb to be antimalarial and antibacterial, which is why I didn't add specific references for that claim.) As to order - I put hyperbaric oxygen first only because it is a conventional therapy for other conditions, and not really alternative medicine in the same sense as the others. -Bapb 22:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

The Buhner herbal treatment protocol (outlined in herbalist Stephen Harrold Buhner's book Healing Lyme), should be mentioned rather than just mentioning andrographis alone- the treatment relies on several herbs, taken together, whose actions in other spirochetal illnesses is well documented (LOTS of peer-reviewed studies listed in the book). Im not sure that andrographis alone works as well as the entire three- or four-herb protocol does, so I think mentioning andrographis alone is misleading.-maria "girl mark" Alovert 23 December 2006
No argument here (though I wouldn't say it's misleading since I didn't refer to andrographis alone as "the Buhner protocol," and it's not medical advice). I don't know much about the Buhner protocol - perhaps you can add information about it to the article? -Bapb 19:39, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

CDC surveillance case clarification

One paragraph under "Diagnosis" reads as follows...

Diagnosis The most reliable method of diagnosing Lyme disease is a clinical exam by an experienced practitioner, taking into account symptoms, history, and possible exposure to ticks in an endemic area. Clinicians who diagnose strictly based on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Case Definition for Lyme are in error, as the CDC explicitly states that this definition is intended for surveillance purposes only, and is "not intended to be used in clinical diagnosis."[76][77]

For purposes of clarity, the second sentence should read "Clinicians who diagnose strictly based on the narrow and restrictive U.S. Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Case Definition...etc.

Domingo11 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Page is a mess

A second page should be made for the Lyme Controversy, it has overtaken the whole page.

Additionally, information regarding co-infections (babesia, rickisetta, etc) have been removed from the page.

Non sourced information needs to be disregarded or noted as "anecdotal". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:20, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

I'm sorry, but I reverted your edits. While I don't think your edits were that bad, you:
  1. removed sourced information with the edit summary "no sources".[5]
  2. blanked a section, stating on the talk page that an article should be created for the Lyme controversy.[6] I agree that such an article might be useful, but please don't remove sourced information without adding it to another article yourself.
  3. broke the article numerous times by only removing some parts of the references, html comments and so on. The article became unreadable in some parts. See Wikipedia:Footnotes on how the referneces system works.
Once again, I'm sorry that I also reverted your good contributions. Feel free to readd them without breaking anything. :-) Here is the diff with all the changes you made. --Conti| 16:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

separate article should be made for borrelia separate from lyme disease

for purposes of clarity. more brevity is needed in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

First sentence is wrong

The first sentence reads...

"Lyme disease or Lyme borreliosis is the most common tick-borne disease in North America and Europe, and the second fastest-growing infectious disease in the United States after AIDS."

It should read...

"Lyme disease or Lyme borreliosis is the most common tick-borne disease in North America and Europe, and the fastest growing infectious disease in the United States."

AIDS affects about 50,000 people per year. CDC reported Lyme disease cases are about 25,000 people. If, according to the CDC, Lyme disease is underreported by a factor of 10, then the actual number of cases is about 250,000, far surpassing AIDS. The underreporting problem is recognized in this Wikipedia article but the dots don't seem to be connected.

Incidentally, the factor of 10 derived by the CDC applies to areas where Lyme disease is acknowledged to be a problem. In other areas, such as the West Coast where Lyme disease is rarely considered in differential diagnosis and rarely reported, this multiplier is meaningless. In any case, it is by far the fastest growing infectious disease in the U.S.

Unfortunately, misinformation such as this leads physicians to believe Lyme disease is rare and leads to Lyme disease not being considered in differential diagnosis to the great detriment of victims.


ILADS Guidelines

Reference 8 refers to the Ilads Guidelines. These have been published in two forms and the link is only to the abbreviated version, which does not contain references.

The full version exists on the ILADS website,

I would add a link myself, but I don't understand how the referencing side of Wikipedia works. 16:24, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. 02:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Page needs real work, Why is "chronic" lyme used thruout the article? It's not a medical accepted diagnosis and should not be used as fact. Late Stage lyme is the proper term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jopn (talkcontribs) 00:11, 16 January 2007

Since the medical literature does refer to "chronic Lyme disease" or "chronic Lyme borreliosis" (for example PMID 17044928, PMID 16433951, PMID 16107953, PMID 15665404, PMID 11982305) I don't see the problem. The article is pretty clear that this represents one point of view. See WP:NPOV. 17:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

To keep with a neutral POV the proper term is "Late Stage lyme". The use of "Chronic lyme" is not accepted or "proven" diagnosis. Throughout the article Chronic Lyme is being used as fact in violation of a neutral point of view. "Evidence from uncontrolled studies" Should be revised or removed. It's a dangerous misinformation piece on long term treatment without proven science based facts. This has to be one of the most poorly written articles on Wikipedia, and needs to be fixed. It's full of nonsense about congenital and chronic infections (for which there is no clear evidence) and the need for long and expensive courses of antibiotics. This whole article screams ILADS, they would be the ones to benefit from this sort of misinformation that is printed throughout. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 22:56, 16 January 2007

The article does not state that long-term treatment is needed any more than it states "long-term antibiotic therapy is not recommended according to IDSA guidelines. Lead author Dr. Gary Wormser cautioned that 'there are no convincing published data showing such [long-term] treatment to be effective.'" That quote doesn't really scream ILADS to me. Wikipedia doesn't give medical advice, this is an effort to describe a medical controversy. You seem to be saying there's no controversy at all. That's pretty POV in light of the numerous references in this article supporting both sides.
The standard for WP:NPOV is not the CDC or IDSA. Wikipedia policy states that "all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one." There are significant published references for congenital and chronic infection in the article. Why would you want to remove published research from an encyclopedia? Who would benefit from that?
Likewise with the one sentence on uncontrolled studies. I added an internal link to clarify the distinction between this and placebo-controlled studies, but as long as this is clear (and with its own section I don't see how it can get clearer) I don't see your argument for removing these published studies, particularly when there have only been 3 controlled trials with varying results. 02:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

GA Nomination

I nominated this article as I was really impressed with it's quality. I ran across it while researching an article I recently started on Wyatt Sexton. Incidentally that article may be of interest to people working on this one as it shows a fairly famous example of a well known person suffering from the disease. I also was wondering if it was worth inclusion into this article maybe as an example or footnote. I'll leave that to the editors of this article to decide though. Quadzilla99 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Some of the references have no title, no retrieval, no nothing except a URL with brackets (#107, #99), others (#121-#124) have nothing except a title and a URL, and the last two sections have no inline cites whatsoever. For those you haven't looked that far, that would include the Epidemiology section(!). Given what's described in the controversy section, there should definitely be some claims there. Gah.--Rmky87 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never worked on the article I just saw it while browsing and thought it was GA quality. Quadzilla99 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Good Article

Congratulations on good article status. This article is very good and someone should put this up for featured article status.--Jorfer 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

incidence map

(New England, Mid-Atlantic, East-North Central, South Atlantic, and West North-Central)

is there an incidence map available?

Split it up

Some subarticles need to be broken out of this to reduce the size. It's 120 KB! Huge, takes forever to load. The guideline is only 32 KB; this should at least be scaled back to 60 KB or so. Everyking 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged it with {{Split-apart}}. --AAA! (AAAA) 08:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
I've splitted off The Lyme controversy. It can be found here. However, you might need to fix it up a bit. I don't really know what to do. --AAA! (AAAA) 09:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate

I have nominated this article for featured article status. See the discussion here. --AAA! (AAAA) 08:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Great article! There are a few sections which are lacking in references - this needs to be adressed before it can be declared FA. Also, I found the order of the sections to be not entirely logical. I would suggest the following:
  1. History
  2. Microbiology
  3. Transmission
  4. Ecology
  5. Epidemiology
  6. Prevention
  7. Symptoms
  8. Diagnosis
  9. Treatment
  10. Prognosis
  11. The Lyme controversy
Good luck!
Rustavo 20:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
YesY Done --AAA! (AAAA) 23:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Dubious History Claims

Not a pertinent feature of this article. It is unfactual conspiracy theory, polemic and unnecessary. There is room on the Lyme disease controversy page for this, or operation paperclip. None of this is cited. And one book LAB 257 cannot be the source of all info, it must be verified by peers to be valid. Hence I removed the following:

"A history of Lyme disease and its identification in Old Lyme would be incomplete without noting Borrelia's decades long association with biowarfare researchers in their quest to discover a cost efficient method of disabling enemy populations. The Borrelia genus is reported by British writer Elena Cook to have been used by WW2 Japanese biowarfare scientists in the infamous Unit 731, which conducted live experiments on prisoners in Manchuria. After World War II, Japanese biowarriors were shielded from war crimes trials and hired by the United States government. According to former Justice official John Loftus, shortly after World War II, Nazi biowarfare scientist Erich Traub, director of the infamous Nazi biowarfare island lab known as Insel Reims, was hired under the top secret U.S. government Project Paperclip. The Princeton educated Dr. Traub reportedly consulted on a variety of bioweapons at both Fort Detrick, Maryland and at Fort Terry Plum Island, which lies a few miles directly opposite Old Lyme, Connecticut. Plum Island lab directors have stated to Michael Carroll, author of the acclaimed book Lab 257, that they kept colonies of the hard tick Amblyomma americanum, a known carrier of Borrelia Lonestari, on Plum Island. Carroll describes eyewitnesses as saying that infected animals on Plum Island were kept in open pens, exposed to bird migration paths. In 2005, the Associated Press reported that the National Institute of Health had listed Lyme as one of the potential bioterrorism agents studied in BSL-4, or top security labs. NIH subsequently deleted Lyme disease from the bioweapon list as a typographical error. Former NIH Lyme Disease Program Officer Edward McSweegan is reportedly a biowarfare expert, and his successor, Dr. Phil Baker, is reportedly an anthrax expert. Coincidentally, many scientists setting Lyme treatment and diagnostic testing policy in the United States have a history as Epidemic Intelligence Officers EIS in the bioweapons field, and many have received lucrative bioweapons grants, which some in the ILADS community view as a conflict of interest for the development of effective treatments and accurate diagnostic testing that could aid the tens of thousands of individuals in the United States now suffering from chronic and neurological Lyme.

In 2004, Dr. Benach was reportedly chosen as a recipient for a $3 million NIH biowarfare research grant, and in 2005, Barbour was reportedly placed in charge of a multi-million dollar new biowarfare complex based at UC Irvine. In 2003, Dr. Klempner was reportedly appointed head of the new $1.6 billion biowarfare top-security facility at Boston University."


I have re-inserted the section in "History" outlining the intimate relationship between the history of Lyme disease and the participation of the biowarfare establishment. The facts and research dollar figures that I presented are important to a full and balanced understanding of the history of Lyme disease, which up until now, has been written primarily by biologists who have been intimately bound up in the biowarfare industry. The historical view of bioweaponeers is at best, biased and it is of the UTMOST importance to present the views of others such as respected lawyers like John Loftus of the United States Justice Department, and Michael Carroll, a practicing attorney and author-- if this entry to be be balanced at all.

The presentation of the facts adds balance to the article, and has nothing to do with the weasel words, "conspiracy," and "dubious" -- words that illustrates the author's understanding of propaganda techniques, but do not refute the facts presented by Loftus and Carroll.

Two very prominent authors in the legal community have presented these facts. The first, whom I have cited, Michael Christopher Carroll, quotes numerous sources regarding the extensive and poorly supervised tick research on Plum Island. Carroll's book, Lab 257: The Distrubing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory, book was praised by by former Senator Lowell Weicker, former Governor Mario Cuomo and Popular Science magazine, and I believe its information adds balance to the previously unbalanced historical information about the emergence of Lyme.

The editor needs to cite facts refuting that bioweapons scientists have been, and continue to be intimately involved in Lyme history. I have already shown factually that McSweegan, Barbour, Klempner and Baker all draw large funds from the bioweapons community, and that they are also all intimately involved in setting Lyme policy. This is an important fact that needs to stay in the history section. Freyfaxi 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternative history not pertinent to article. Seems like scaremongering. Removed. Has its own page under Erich Traub.


With all due respect, who are you and why don't you identify yourself properly?

"Scaremongering" is a non "neutral" word, and is patronizing to Wikipedia readers.. and has little to do with facts.

Adult Wikipedia readers can make up their own minds, based on historical facts ---whether they want to be "scared" or not. True history is often frightening, but a true and balanced presentaiton of the facts is always more valuable than any fear created by those facts..

What is most frightening is the idea that censorship could exist on Wikipedia.....

"Alternative history" looks a bit like a "weasel term" to me. There is either 1) true history based on facts or 2) false history that omits facts. There is no such thing as "alternative" history. The previously written history ommited a lot of crucial information that the public needs in order to have a complete picture of the history of the Lyme epidemic.

Why are these facts so threatening to you? This seems odd in an impartial editor. Why not let the evidence speak for itself? Is there a motive for suppressing cited historical evidence?

The previous history as written by biologists omits relevant facts about the relationship between Lyme disease, Plum Island, and the bioweapons community. These facts have all been outlined in several well documented books and articles that I have cited, written by reputable men outside of the bioweapons community, and they deserve to be discussed here, in a free and open environment. Let the facts stand for themselves.

I have added the section back in, and I would be willing to work with you to reach a compromise on its presentation, but until then, this dispute about the history is NOT resolved.

Freyfaxi 16:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


The Controversy page was split off for size reasons, not because of its irrelevance. No matter what your POV, no knowledgable person can deny that the controversy is fundamental to any basic description of Lyme disease. We all know that literally every issue concerning diagnosis and treatment is controversial for patients who don't meet the restrictive CDC surveillance definition. For that reason it absolutely deserves a mention in the introductory paragraph, which I have just restored for the second time. Please do not remove it a third time without discussing the issue here.

In fact, this content was in the intro before the Controversy section was split off. So to remove it from the intro now is completely unjustifiable.

If anyone doubts the highly politicized nature of Lyme, please read through this Talk page's history. This is getting ridiculous. It is not ok to hide and conceal information, particularly in sneaky ways. The only safeguard we have is ensuring that people have clear, immediate access to all the content that was on the page before Lyme_disease_controversy and Lyme_disease_microbiology were split off. 20:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

REPLY: I disagree, the controversy is particular to chronic or post lyme disease, not all of lyme disease.
Furthermore there are more treatment modalities available than just antibiotics (the crux of the controversy). The so called lyme disease controversy is a fallacious either/or; false dichotomy. Its actually an oversimplification of the disease. The reason the pages were split off were A) this page was too long, and B) those topics deserve their own relevant articles due to the depth. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) 23:12, 25 April 2007.
First, for those curious what this is about, here is the one sentence that the above contributor has deleted multiple times. (It is referenced.) "Amid great controversy over diagnosis, testing and treatment, two different standards of care for Lyme disease have emerged."
The fact that you refer to it above as a "so-called" controversy shows your bias. I am not taking sides, but come on, there are two sets of published diagnosis/treatment guidelines that are strikingly different. There are fundamental issues of disagreement. Why deny this?
Further, your points above are completely false. Chronic lyme and antibiotics are not the only source of controversy. About the only thing that's not controversial is treatment of early Lyme. Diagnosis is highly controversial even in early stages. For example, what proportion of patients get an EM rash (early Lyme)? How accurate are the tests (discussion is on the controversy page, which you don't think is central)?
Let's say a patient has multisystemic nonspecific symptoms such as paresthesias, myalgia and arthralgia, dizziness, fever that all developed after a known tickbite. How would you interpret a positive Lyme test for that patient? The Infectious Diseases Society of America says it's likely false positive in the absence of CDC-defined objective manifestations such as frank arthritis -- and many clinicians would disagree. It is quite clear to anyone familiar with Lyme that the controversy affects virtually every area of diagnosis and treatment, except for the simplest textbook cases. And even what that proportion is (simple textbook cases) is central to the debate.
I'm guessing from your edits that you know all this. The question is, why are you so intent on denying that the controversy is significant? With the Attorney General of Connecticut investigating the Infectious Diseases Society of America's process of developing Lyme guidelines, your position that the controversy is some mere side issue is untenable.
You are not the first person to minimize the controversy. This page has repeatedly seen attempts at vandalism and page blanking, always from the pro-IDSA side. Concealing information by deleting internal links is, to me, in a similar vein. And that's why I've restored the sentence the intro. 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)



I have provided credible sources from reliable authors OUTSIDE of the community of bioweapons professionals. This should ADD balance and subtract BIAS. Why was this credible information relegated to a different page? I have put this blaanced information back into the main page to increase objectivity and reduce the bias in the history section.

Why is this credible historical information so threatening to the bioweaponeers who monoplize this Lyme Disease page?

Really -- this IS starting to look like a conspiracy.... this page a very unbalanced and BIASED and it needs to be rectified with perspectives from those OUTSIDE of the bioweapons community-- like Michael Carroll and John Loftus.

It is clear that the current history section is biased in favor of ONE weak explanation for the epidemic--- it provides a one sided view of Lyme history -- one that fits conveniently with the goals and objectives of the bioweapons community-- that is, to minimize this epidemic in the minds of the public so that, like Walter Reed Army Medical-- no one is held accountable for the mess. Sadly , Wiki is playing right into the hands of those who want the information "spun" to support their financial gains.

The chronic nature of borrelia infection has been known since at least the 1970s-- yet Wiki editors continue to support those here who deny this information --- using poorly designed and biased research citations-- and omitting research that counters the one sided views expressed here..

Relapsing fever has been studied as a bioweapon for decades-- (just read the book Germs by Judith Miller) and its serious chronic nature has been known for that long-- yet the biologists who dictate this site deny it.

I would ask the editors to consider keeping my history edit where it is ---- to add balance and fairness to the perspective. Right now, the article is almost completely one-sided in favor of men who have received billions of dollars in biological weapons research money. I personally have a neighbor who has Bell's palsy from Lyme, and her daughter was born with congenital Lyme disease and she is stunted. My other neighbor has MS, and my doctor has treated a 27 years so called "MS" patient with antibiotics, which restored her to complete health. She had a chronic persistent LYME infection! She is going to sue Presbyterian Medical, which agrees with the outdated guidlines presented in this Lyme page right here.

I also suffer chronic Lyme arthritis and neurological issues -- yet my insights and well reserached facts and publications are deleted by people who know little about this disease, and by men who receive HUGE grant moneys from the defense and biological weapons industry. Shame.

Please, editors-- be careful-- you are dealing with many many people's lives. This epidemic, which has spread out from its epicenter near Plum Island has now grown to the entire country. Of course the bioweaponeers don't want the truth to be published---- that is why they are fighting like hell to maintain control of the information flow here-- so their grant money is not threatened and their offensive weapons community is not held accountable for its sloppy biased, and spin filled research-- and its germ accidents that needlessly hurt thousands.

—The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pagesFreyfaxi 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)|unsigned]] comment was added by Freyfaxi (talkcontribs) 03:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC).


I was wondering why in some places it stresses that only the nymph stage of the tick can transmit lyme disease, whereas in other areas, and in picture captions, it says both the nymph and the adult cycle can trasmit the disease. As I have no knowledge about this, I cannot correct it either way, but I believe that someone should.

The sentence stating "It is important to note that only the nymph can transmit the disease as adult ticks do not become infected" is incorrect. The CDC page linked to states that adult ticks do not become infected through feeding, but whether or not that's true, they can already have the bacteria in their systems prior to reaching the adult stage, and from what I've read on the topic, estimates are that roughly 20% of Lyme disease infections are from adult ticks, with the rest coming from those in nymph stages. 'Kash 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reworded that sentence accordingly. 'Kash 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Lyme Researchers and Program Officers Brief Grant History

Hi, I have added the following well documented grant information into the history section because it is relevant to the treatment and diagnostic testing debate.. Before disputing this documented information, please provide footnotes and documentation that prove that the individuals are NOT on the bioweapons payroll and provide a reason as to why this information is NOT relevant to the history of Lyme disease, diagnostic testing and treatment.

For example, in 2003, Lyme researcher Dr. Mark Klempner was reportedly appointed head of the new $1.6 billion biowarfare top-security facility at Boston University.[1] In 2004, Lyme researcher Dr. Jorge Benach,[2] was reportedly chosen as a recipient for a $3 million biowarfare research grant, and in 2005, Lyme researcher Dr. Alan Barbour was reportedly placed in charge of a $40 million dollar new biowarfare complex based at UC Irvine. [3]

Former NIH Lyme disease program officer, Edward McSweegan has published numerous articles and letters to editorial pages relating to biowarfare topics ranging from anthrax to plague. Curiously, Mr. McSweegan's novel, Deliberate Release, is biowarfare thriller that describes the deliberate release of a germ weapon. [4]

Freyfaxi 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I see that the above financial and budgetary information was edited OUT with no explanation given. I will continue to add the useful financial information which provides balance to this piece, along with a POV tag if it is deleted again. Thank you. Freyfaxi 12:44, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to the user who added additional information. Some one took our well researched edits out with no explanation. We will continue to put them back in or put a POV tag on this page if the information continues to be deleted. The brief description of the money trail is an important part of the history. Thank you.

I added the additional references previously, and did copy rewrite for NPOV, but also moved the piece to controversy (which had been deleted and I reinserted). It is a tangent, one more deserving of the controversy section than the history section. It is not pertinent to Lyme history. Lyme history is about the development of the disease, not contemporary controversies surrounding the disease. New pieces of history should include facts of research discoveries only.

Removal by drowning with oil

Someone had written "Put oil on the tick and it will fall off because it can not breathe." on the removal section. I removed it, because there already is a standard procedure to remove them, which is the best. Alternatives would be confusing. Besides, the time it takes for a tick to drown is longer than the time to pull it out - perhaps it can even breathe from the blood oxygen. This delay increases the risk of infection. Mikael Häggström 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The importance of noticing the symptoms and my experience

I personaly have had this disorder be for and it is very umpleasant. I enfisize the importance of acknowledging the symptoms greatly. I caught my case in the early stagers probally in the first month. My experiece started in the woods and when i got home i noticed a disturbance around my abdomonal regoin. I lifter my shirt and saw the tick crawling still. I knew it was a "deer tick" because of its size. I then quickly got the tweezers, though by the time it had attached. Within the few minutes it was attached lyme desise had transferd, without my knoledge. Taking a normal caution i used rubbing alcohal but to my knolege it helped was inadequete. Within the next month i started experencing pain, being a teenager i thought it was normal, growing pains. Soon enough the spots or "bullseyes" appeared and i thought it was an alergic reaction to a new cleaning agent my mother used on our bathtub. DO NOT MAKE A MISTAKE ABOUT THIS, DO NOT TAKE CHANCES. This is a very bad mistake i had made, and very soon had regreted. To me this disorder was very painfull with unberable headaches and paralizing back pains. After going to the docters and having getting blood drawn, i sat at home thinking upon the situation. At my school we even had a poster about it, in the nurses room, though at the time i didnt think of it. the next week the doctor called giving me deciving news, it was a false. within the next weak still experiencing the symptoms. i soon got fatigue so bad i didnt want to walk to the next room, being an active adolesent i thought this was strange. I soon went to the doctors office the next week to get another blood test, this time showing the truth, it was positive. for the next month i began the Amoxicillin treatment for the next month. though the doctor said i had been cured by the end of the treatment, he also said that it is close to imposible to find out that it has completly left. i still experience the after affects almost a year later.

Unclear article, and question

The article is very confused and rambling. I got a better idea of the disease from the NHS.

One question which doesn't seem to be answered by both Wikipedia and the NHS is:If the disease is identified early, and it is treated in the standard way with antibiotics, does the treatment completely get rid of the disease, or does it just lay dormant like, say, herpes. If it recurs, do the same symptoms present themselves? Thanks

--Rhubarbandmustard 09:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

  1. ^ Washington Post January 22, 2005
  2. ^ NYStar News Publication of the New York State Office of Science, Technology and Academic Research, August 2004
  3. ^ UCI Medical Centre, June 1, 2005
  4. ^ McSweegan, Edward , "Deliberate Release", published September 20, 2002 by 1st Books Library, ISBN-10: 1403343535.