Researchers have a problem. They insist that Lyme disease doesn’t exist in Australia, but at the same time it does exist. How can you possible explain away such a descrepancy?
“bacteria responsible for Lyme disease was found in local animals or ticks” I don’t have any problems believing that. On the other hand, if you don’t find it that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. But the researchers have searched really well, so they are likely correct. So the bacteria that are held responsible for Lyme disease are not found in Australia and still people have Lyme disease.
“said positive test results in people who had not been overseas were likely to be false positives.” So you are saying that the test is useless? Interesting attempt to explain why your own research is crappy. “You have all the symptoms of Lyme disease and you have a positive test for Lyme disease, but you don’t have Lyme disease, because you can’t have Lyme disease”. That’s the level of science nowadays.
“definition of Lyme disease should be expanded to include more than one strain of Borrlia bacteria.” Why? Is there any proof that other strains cause this disease? You cannot expand a definition of disease just because it suits you. That’s politics, not science.
“It’s non-scientific to deny evidence of these pathogens with very little contemporary research.” This really requires an explanation. There is little evidence that these pathogens cause Lyme and if you say so that’s non-scientific? That’s basically what Ms. Whiteman says. It’s reverse logic. Science should be about proving things. It’s not “this is true unless you can prove it’s not”.
“Lyme disease-like illness”. Don’t you love medico-scientific language? If it looks like Lyme disease, it feels like Lyme disease and you have a positive test for Lyme disease, but you live in Australia, then you have a Lyme disease-like illness. You cannot make this up.
“with antibiotic resistance from prolonged and unnecessary use a major problem.” Resistance is just one problem of the overuse of antibiotics. There are many, much worse, problems with this. And though antibiotics are not the best way to treat Lyme disease, it’s absurd to deny people this treatment just because they live in Australia and “cannot have Lyme disease”.
“bacteria present in Australia cause a chronic debilitating illness” Wait a moment here. You only want proof that the Australian bacteria cause Lyme disease? I would really like to see some proof that Lyme disease is caused by any kind of bacteria. For this whole story doesn’t add up. Why didn’t Lyme disease exist till some 100 years ago? If ticks and bacteria cause it then it should have been around for thousands of years. And there are loads of people with Lyme disease who never got bitten by a tick. But if they live in the right area they will get this diagnosis. If they happen to live in Australie they don’t. The story of Lyme disease is full of holes.
“The problem isn’t lack of evidence, it’s lack of prioritised research,” So you do have evidence, but you do need more research at the same time? Australians can’t have Lyme disease, but their Lyme-diease like illness must be caused by bacteria in Australian ticks. Those ticks have been around forever and the bacteria probably too. But nobody got a Lyme-disease like illness 50 years ago. I’m getting completely confused with all the contradictory statements.
It sounds very much like there is no evidence whatsoever that bacteria have anything to do with Lyme disease. Germs are blamed for all kinds of diseases, even when there is no proof and the story doesn’t remotely add up. Considering that Lyme disease exploded quickly this sounds very much like a man-made disease. Something with environmental poisoning or bad medical treatments. But of course that’s not something that gets a lot of research money, so the poor bacteria probably will be blamed forever, even when they are clearly innocent. “Innocent until proven guilty” is not something that applies to medical research.