It irks me to see inaccurate info about Lyme on health-oriented blogs. For example, I just read the sentence: "Lyme is completely treatable. No need to panic," and now I'm really bugged. No, I don't want everybody to panic. However, it's just such unfounded casualness about Lyme that creates the illusion that one needn't seek a Lyme aware doctor's advice right away, at the first suspicion of Lyme symptoms or the presence of a tick bite. There is absolutely no evidence that the person making the claim has any awareness of just how dangerous, and multi-stage, Lyme can be when left untreated.

The same blogger also cavalierly states that "a characteristic bull's eye rash will show up within 3 to 30 days." GRrrrrr! Not true. Up to 50% of people with a Lyme infection will never show signs of the circular, red skin rash. Diagnosing Lyme is a tricky thing, part art, part science. Even ILADS doctors differ in their approach to diagnosing Lyme. I skim the blogs like a watch-dog, looking for useful information. I'm vigilant. I can sniff out a lie about Lyme faster than you can say "neuroborelliosis."

How is the blog-skimming public supposed to become informed, with half-truths and lies circulating so freely? The mis-truths and misinformation all stems back to the opinion of the CDC -- in the form of the IDSA -- that Lyme is not a serious disease. I am really looking forward to following up on the results of the antitrust investigation into the IDSA's guidelines for the treatment of Lyme. Stay tuned. I'll be posting whatever I sniff out right here.