Not long ago, one of my patients developed a mysterious illness that emerged suddenly, and halted her life as she knew it. As she slowly recovered, she began to wonder whether Lyme might have caused her misery. So we sent off a round of tests. As expected, however, the entire panel was negative: no evidence of Lyme, not even a hint of a wisp of a suggestion.

But she still felt lousy two months later. And maybe, just maybe, the tests were wrong: surely, stranger things have happened.

Well, we discussed, why not? Why not just try a few weeks of antibiotics and see what happens. If nothing improves, there is one less thing to worry about. And if, hallelujah, she felt better, well bingo, there's the diagnosis and the treatment all rolled into one. What's the big deal?

What indeed?

I was uneasy about marching into a blind antibiotic trial because I strongly doubted Lyme was at play. After a certain amount of hemming and hawing, I advised her not to take the antibiotics. I thought the likelihood of response was too low to justify the risk of a problem with the therapy.

She, however, was the captain of our health care team, remember. And, politely but firmly, she expressed her wish to try the antibiotics. Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Or so she surely thought.

According to protocol, and to prove I bore her no ill will for rejecting my recommendation, I arranged for the intravenous antibiotics to be given at her home. Hers, after all, was a reasonable choice.

A week after starting the treatment, she developed inflammation at the insertion site. The intravenous catheter had to be removed. As we discussed the next step, she told me she didn't want additional antibiotics. I confess to a longish moment of satisfaction: doing nothing had been the best thing to do.

Then, after an extended silence, I tried to take the buck off her desk and told her I never should have suggested the antibiotics.

Doctors make dozens of clinical decisions a day; it goes with the territory. We've grown accustomed to the fact that not all of them work out. In contrast, she was a rookie at this, and I worried that she would kick herself over the decision.

Many people presume that doctors insist on being in charge simply because they like the adoration. Yes, the stunned, unquestioning patient simplifies decision making and shortens the workday. And yes, it is nice to have a patient routinely defer to you out of apparent, whatever-you-say-Doc admiration. Who doesn't like a fan club?

Afterall, he caved in to the patients demand to be put on abx, which could be good just as it could be bad.

His attitude and ignorance, though, is what's upsetting here.

If he's gonna treat her for Lyme, it has to be done according to a protocol which he apparantly knows nothing about. (That was the ignorance part.)

And the reason why he doesn't know about the treatment protocol is due to his attitude towards Lyme in the first place.

What's perhaps even more upsetting is the bias of the interviewer. He surely isn't objective. And all likelyhood he's probably a friend of the dear Dr, or he was asked to interview the Dr by a superior who's a friend of the Dr.

Just like he said : he was convinced it had nothing to do with Lyme before treating to appease the patient.

Some Docs are in CYA mode.

If they admit the possibility of progressive debilitation, as in their patient history they likely have many that they sent through the MS, ALS, CFS, Fibro gammet..
if they admit to the realities of Lyme, it could well mean major malpractice suits.

So..as many in CYA mode do..they casually blow the whole thing off.

I don't know of ANY doctor, LLMD or non-LLMD, who would give IV abx as the first line of treatment for Lyme. This piece is making me really uneasy. It smells like carefully coded propaganda, written to make the doctor look compassionate for giving in to his patient's wishes, but in reality designed to discredit us crazy Lyme patients for thinking we have a disease that is hard to test for and has many symptoms.

Anyway, I owe my knowledge that I have Lyme to the NYT. They had an article on Lyme about 17 years ago, and it included a picture of a bulls eye rash. My mom recognized the rash as something I had a few months previous.

It's because of that article that I pieced everything together and found an LLMD. I'm be sure to write that it my letter to the editor.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Aniek:
[Anyway, I owe my knowledge that I have Lyme to the NYT. They had an article on Lyme about 17 years ago, and it included a picture of a bulls eye rash. -A[/B]

---

This article was just terrible all the way around

And if she had, he would have said, "SEE, you felt worse, didn't you!?"

------------------
oops!
Lymetutu

When I first tried to find a Lyme doctor in New York five years ago, it read a lot like this. Now, even the people who don't completely believe me are respectful and professional. When you really have your facts down, and one look at you shows you've been steeled through battle, doctors do sense something is real here, even though they may quibble with certain aspects of your story.

In defense of the Times, a good chunk of the New York Times staff either has or has overcome Lyme, or has family or friends with Lyme. Some of the greatest journalists in the field have had it, or are hiding it, or have interviewed outstanding members of other professions who have had it and know how devastating it can be.

I recently heard about a legendary CEO of a Fortune 500 company who had to engineer an excuse for retiring early, because he was disabled with Lyme.

Another star writer said she had neurological Lyme for months, but couldn't find the cause of her symptoms. Her son was born underweight, and she resigned herself to eventually finding brain cancer. Then someone finally gave her a Western blot, and she recovered with rocephin.

They really aren't in a conspiracy against patients. But one story in their paper can set a mandate for public policy, to which policymakers across the country must respond. So they are super-cautious.

But anyone here could pitch a story to the Times. You just need a quirky angle.

Also, remember that these doctors see New Yorkers as patients all day long. If you have never lived or visited here, you should know it's like arguing before the Supreme Court on a daily basis, if the justices are also hungry alligators who may leap off the bench and eat the attorneys for lunch. It's because our rent is so high, any health problem that interferes with work could be a trigger of financial disaster. So we go through the roof over health issues.

Anyway, letters to the NYTimes are really in order.

quote:

---

Originally posted by liz28:
Well... most of us have pretty obvious Lyme symptoms. He said she didn't have any. She wasn't in a wheelchair, or reading 30 symptoms off a list she compiled from reading the Internet. She was just like, maybe it's Lyme.

---

Read the article again. We are not told what her symptoms were, other than that she felt "lousy". We are only told that the tests were negative, and we are not told what tests were administered or by what lab. We are also not told anything about why the patient thought she had Lyme. For all we know she pulled a tick off herself. We are told almost nothing specific about her case.

As I said up thread, it is as if this woman's suffering comes far second behind making the point that Lyme is a sketchy disease and patients who think they have Lyme should never be listened to. I wish we could hear the patient's side of the story. How's she doing? What's her opinion of this doctor and how he dealt with her?

quote:

---

Originally posted by liz28:

In defense of the Times, a good chunk of the New York Times staff either has or has overcome Lyme, or has family or friends with Lyme. Some of the greatest journalists in the field have had it, or are hiding it, or have interviewed outstanding members of other professions who have had it and know how devastating it can be.

I recently heard about a legendary CEO of a Fortune 500 company who had to engineer an excuse for retiring early, because he was disabled with Lyme.

Another star writer said she had neurological Lyme for months, but couldn't find the cause of her symptoms. Her son was born underweight, and she resigned herself to eventually finding brain cancer. Then someone finally gave her a Western blot, and she recovered with rocephin.

They really aren't in a conspiracy against patients. But one story in their paper can set a mandate for public policy, to which policymakers across the country must respond. So they are super-cautious.

But anyone here could pitch a story to the Times. You just need a quirky angle.

Also, remember that these doctors see New Yorkers as patients all day long. If you have never lived or visited here, you should know it's like arguing before the Supreme Court on a daily basis, if the justices are also hungry alligators who may leap off the bench and eat the attorneys for lunch. It's because our rent is so high, any health problem that interferes with work could be a trigger of financial disaster. So we go through the roof over health issues.

[This message has been edited by liz28 (edited 10 May 2005).]

---

All Lyme patients, everywhere, fear and sometimes succumb to financial disaster. That's not a New York City issue. Half of all people in the US who declare bankruptcy do so because of medical bills. I don't see how an ostrich approach helps.

As for the NYT being afraid to set public policy -- I call b******t. They have been helping to set policy for quite some time now. They are not afraid of it, more likely they don't want to upset the insurance companies. Does AIDS, or SARS or any other medical situation require a "quirky angle" to get coverage? This already is a public health situation, and not a new one either.

I've been reading the Times for at least eight years, and the only time they ever did a front page story on Lyme in that time period was when they put the Klempner study (no long-term abx for Lyme) above the fold. That was in June of 2001. The title was "Lyme Disease Is Hard to Catch and Easy to Halt, Study Finds". When that rotten Lyme vaccine came off the market, the Times did a couple of paragraphs hidden in the business section. Never mind that NY state has the highest number of reported Lyme cases in the nation, the Times didn't think the vaccine was news. They didn't cover the efforts to lobby the NY legislature either, not even when Lyme activists got OPMC reform passed and Pataki vetoed the bill. It's not like the Times doesn't have reporters in Albany.

I feel sorry for any reporters who are suffering the way I do, but they'd better understand that no knight in shining armor is coming to save them from Lyme. *They* need to speak out. The political situation isn't going to change otherwise. And I certainly don't weep for any CEO. I'm sure he has money to burn, and if he is so famous he could be a boon to humanity by speaking out. I'll save my respect for Amy Tan and those like her, those who aren't cowards.

[This message has been edited by dulcamara (edited 11 May 2005).]

[This message has been edited by dulcamara (edited 11 May 2005).]

The fact that he picked Lyme out of all diseases out there is not unfortunate. It's premedidated. He is, after all, the director of infection control at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center. He knows perfectly the potential impact of what he's writing.

I remember my doctor telling me: "many people fancy themselves with Lyme" (even after 2 highly positive tests!). The 2 of them probably went to the same school...

People like him make Lyme appear like a fantasy. All things being considered, if he knew best, why did he not figure out what was wrong with his patient in the first place? and what happened to her?

My guess is this policy was set by the owners or other VIPs at the Times and the fact that their reporters or other New Yorkers get Lyme has no bearing on that policy. We have seen prominent steerites who don't abide by their own dogma on lyme treatment. And if any of them should end up chronic, they will never come out in public and admit they were wrong. There is politics and there is disease and public health, and this is politics. Other big name newspapers are not doing any better. Neither are the TV networks. The media are not immune from pressure, and they are big business, just like any other corporation. If you want to find good lyme coverage, you will only find it in local radio stations, local papers. And even many of them shy away from controversy. Mainly what you get are patient stories, not the big picture.

Another thing that puzzles me is why a doctor in charge of infection control is treating a possible case of Lyme. Infection control is reducing the number of hospital caused infections, as this is a cause of considerable mortality. People come in for surgery, come out with staph or some other infection they didn't have to begin with.

This guy's behavior makes me think he should not see patients at all, not for anything.

And I am remembering that the head of this cancer establishment is none other than the former director of NIH, under whose leadership the Lyme program was so poorly administered.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lou:.
My guess is this policy was set by the owners or other VIPs at the Times and the fact that their reporters or other New Yorkers get Lyme has no bearing on that policy. [This message has been edited by lou (edited 11 May 2005).][/B]

---

Word to everything you said, lou, especially the above. It's policy. And yeah, not just at the Times. I remember when the late David Bloom did an excellent piece on Lyme (January, 2001) that was supposed to be shown on Dateline in primetime. Instead, NBC buried at seven in the morning on their Saturday news show. I don't know how you fight this. I don't know when the tipping point will come.

A big name newspaper got a letter from an AIDS activist in response to a story they wrote. The activist pointed out that the newspaper had no interest in running stories back when it would have made a big difference in trying to get official action. The activist said the newspaper wasn't interested back then. Now they are. This rang some bells with me. At some point in the future (distant?) we can expect good coverage, when it won't make much difference.

Investigative journalism is at a low point these days.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lymetoo:
My opinion....We have no details on the "patient" because she doesn't exist.

---

This thought also crossed my mind. What a cynic this illness has made me.

Got to admit, it didn't cross my mind they might have invented this person. If this is true, they wouldn't have to worry about getting blasted by the patient. Or sued. Invented patients do not complain about how they are described. Or since she was already a patient at a cancer institution, this condition might have already removed her from the land of the living.

quote:

---

Originally posted by lou:
Sure wish the patient (if she exists) sees this article and writes a response. But would they print it?

---

Interesting question.

I'll go on record as betting the Times prints two letters. One will be a mildly-worded protest from a Lyme patient. The other will be a strong agreement from an MD or some other authority figure. If we are lucky, we'll get two mildly-worded protests and one letter supportive of the doctor. If we are unlucky we'll get a letter from an authority figure supporting Sepkowitz, and another supportive letter from a layperson who feels she was duped into believing she had Lyme by the big, bad internet.

I've seen it before -- but we need to write in anyway.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dulcamara:
I'll go on record as betting the Times prints two letters. One will be a mildly-worded protest from a Lyme patient.

---

Could be mine. Mild enough. Here is what I sent:

Dear Science Editor,

As a major actor on the media scene, the New York Times is well aware of the repercussions that the articles they publish may have on our society. For that reason, one would expect neutrality, especially when it comes to major public health concerns.

The fact that the New York Times decided to publish Kent Sepkowitz's essay ``Doctors Do Know Things Patients Don't Know'' on May 10, 2005 is a sad reminder that the media are not immune from political pressure and that the New York Times has - again -- taken a stand against recognizing that Lyme Disease is a major public health issue.

The story of a sick woman who fancies herself with Lyme Disease, narrated by a megalomaniac physician, may very well have passed as a frustrated article about patients' ignorance vs. doctor's superiority, hadn't it been written by the director of infection control at a major medical center, therefore a man who is aware that the Lyme diagnosis is above all a clinical one.

Keeping that information in mind, sharp readers will have taken a closer look at the story and wondered:

�Why would any doctor prescribe intravenous antibiotic therapy before trying oral antibiotic therapy first? Surely, indulging patients must have limits set by prudence, if not by common sense.

�What was the actual diagnosis? Surely, if the Lyme test came back negative (even though it is widely acknowledged that the test has a margin of error of over 35%), such an experienced doctor must have diagnosed another disease. If so, did he cure his patient?

Others readers - most, unfortunately -- will have decided that Lyme Disease is a convenient excuse often summoned in vain, one that puts the medical community in a position where they could actually be forced to jeopardize their patient's interests.

To me, and to most Lyme Disease sufferers across the country, the story seems only a disguised attempt at sharing one's views about Lyme Disease, "the famously elusive disease that many patient fancy themselves with, but do not actually have".

As vast and lumpy as the terrain of Lyme Disease may be, and as confusing a place as it may be for doctors and patients alike, it is one of the rare conditions when patients may know best.

Millions of people never fancied themselves with Lyme Disease. They just became sick, and got sicker, without ever suspecting that Neuroborreliosis was behind their endless list of health concerns. Little by little, they lost their ability to function normally. Some lost their life. At their side were well intentioned but utterly clueless individuals who fancied themselves knowledgeable members of the medical community.

I'm only one amongst thousands. I'm only 30 and for over 10 years, I was told that my health problems were psychosomatic. Only when I lost my ability to walk and couldn't remember where I lived or my age did a doctor finally ordered a blood test, which came back positive for Lyme Disease.

Lyme was the last thing on my mind. Had I been aware of the disease and of its consequences before, I too might have pushed for treatment, especially when my doctor had failed to diagnose anything else.

Far from suggesting that doctors should prescribe blind antibiotic treatments each time a mysterious condition materializes or that Lyme is behind every medical mystery, I wish to remind the medical community that patients should be taken more seriously.

Contrary to Mr. Sepkowitz's belief, the difference between doctors and patients is not that we are stuck playing on their home court. A new breed of doctors is emerging; competent physicians whose humbleness and courage are only matched by their dedication to their patients and their commitment to making our life a better one, even when political pressure threatens to close their doors. More and more patients are finding their way to their home court.

Managing an illness is an uncertain endeavor only when left to uncertain hands, physicians and media alike.

1) I know there are space constraints author and editor probably had to observe, but we learn nothing about her symptoms, the nature of the sudden onset, and her continuing illness. A story works because of details and we cannot form a picture of the patient. This is poor writing and editing. Just a line, such as "This dark-haired 35 year old working mother" or whatever...would help us picture and sympathize with her...and a few more lines, "Sudden onset of arthritis and severe fatigue; or...sudden onset of projectile vomiting...or...sudden onset of hatred of infectious disease doctors" --gggg

2) It would be nice to see a little compassion from the doctor towards the patient's suffering, or at least a false nod toward her suffering. Instead of an inner satisfaction that her proposed treatment was aborted by infection.

3) If she doesn't know much about lyme apparently he doesn't either. For instance, a trial of oral antibiotics is in order before intravenous; and secondly, a second western blot after that trial often results in positive lyme test where there had been negative before.

Letting a patient 'bully' you into intravenous rocephin for a disease you believe she doesn't have is bad medicine. He should have referred her. It's all very odd, I must say.

Finally I think this is actually a ver yinteresting piece because the playing field HAS changed and it is more level than before. We're not saying patients are experts, by any means, but we *are* saying that with the amount of knowledge being shared and with access to scientific information as soon as its published, doctors are certainly going to have to share some of their power and laurels with their patients in partnership.

But the thing is, this is like a protest by a failing authority. The extent of his failure is evidenced in the fact that he let his patient convince him to give her IV antibiotics, not a first line treatment, for an infection he personally felt she did not have! Incredible.

it trickles down to the reporters in what gets printed.
it can easily be done in really subtle ways..

ie: senior editor is approached about a compelling story on Lyme..and he says something like "I just don't think our readers are interested in this at this time..
why not do that piece on blah-dee-blah..

and that's it. Stories considered "too hot", that would incite public outrage..are avoided..especially if the outrage would be directed to anyone who has a connection to the paper's ownership.

There has been more than enough effort, stories, writings, documentation to
warrant this be covered, and in a major way. How come nobody big will touch it (at least not for very long)..it's a hot potatoe.
(not just this, tho..)

We have very few independant journalist resources left in the old USA.
I wonder how we can be considered democratic when the public is kept in the dark on o many things.

Mo

This was one of my favorite sentences:

"At their side were well intentioned but utterly clueless individuals who fancied themselves knowledgeable members of the medical community."

Fortunately, we get slapped in the face often enough to keep us fighting.

The idea of contacting Greg Palast is a great one.
He is a true investigative reporter - so much so that most of his publication is done in England. BUT he lives in Suffolk County New York, the area that has had a huge Lyme epidemic from the 1970's on. There's no way he can live there and not know many people with Lyme.

This is not the kind of thing he generally writes about, but it can't hurt for us to start sending him letters about this travesty that is generally being ignored by the mainstream press. www.gregpalast.com

Ellen

quote:

---

Originally posted by JillF:
I hate ignorance

---

Nothing wrong with ignorance. We're all ignorant to some extent.

It's when ignorance is coupled with arrogance that it gets upsetting.

IMHO.

IV treatment?! Wow?! Geez, I remember my first beer too.

They should be embarrassed that this actually was published and that someone was dumb enough to agree to be interviewed.

Dulca, would you edit your posts where you quoted folks and DELETE [B]at the beginning of the quote & end? This way you have the quote without the bold and we late-stage lymies who have severe eye problems are able to read it.

You can EDIT a post any time!

You can NOT edit a subject line so that's why it's important to make sure everyone posts specific topics for more replies since there are 40-50 posts/replies daily.

Thanks so much from someone who has had lyme for 35 years and 1 yr. of diagnosis!

C.Ellen, WONDERFUL letter writing!

The Lyme can of worms is so much bigger than AIDS ever was or ever will be, at least in this country. This is all about money, Insurance company money, self funded companies money and the federal governments money.

I have looked over all my bills for the three of us for the last two years. Total money paid by the insurance company and myself just in the last two years has been $140,000. Just the first 5 months of this year not including IV meds, my families medicine bill has been $12,000. It is all about the money.

Until they have a cure in place, everything will be done to hide this disease because it will bankrupt everyone. I know the government has a good idea of the real number of people that are infected, even if was only 1% of the popluation, the costs of treatment would be too high.

I think this is the sad but true reality. It is a real catch 22.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dulcamara:
Great letter, christelleny. I'm glad people are responding. Whatever the Times ends up printing, it is always good to let them know how important this subject is.

---

I just got a phone call from the Editor. He said they're considering publishing the article and wanted to know what name I wanted to use as a signature (!)

quote:

---

Originally posted by christelleny:
I just got a phone call from the Editor. He said they're considering publishing the article and wanted to know what name I wanted to use as a signature (!)
I wish I had spent more time on it...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by christelleny:
I wish to remind the medical community that patients should be taken more seriously.

---

"Patients should be taken more seriously."

Should they? Across the board? Always? Or just when it comes to Lyme disease?

This statement is not going to help us.

I didn't know squat about LD when I first went to see my PCP.

I asked for more abx, but he didn't give it to me. Should he?

No he should not...cause I also turned out to have Babesia and hormone deficiency and metal poisining. And he tested for neither.

No sense in treating for Lyme before irradicating these other conditions.

The problem was not that he didn't take me seriously. The problem was that he lacked the skills to diagnose me, and therefore couldn't properly treat me neither.

No different than the dear MD in the NYT article.

What needs to happen is that MDs need to become humble and objective and put the patient first.

Then they need to keep up with the latest news in medicine and get out of the a$$es of the drug companies and the insurance companies.

They need to spend the time constantly reeducating themselves. Not at paid-for-conferences by Merck et al. But picking up peer-reviewed medical journals and read them cover to cover every month.

Yes, this will interrupt the assembly line medical group.

Yes, this will disturb the drug/insurance companies.

But that's what's needed.

MDs already do listen to their patients. Afterall, that's why the LD patient in the NYT article finally got her IV.

But that's not what she needed.

She needed to see a qualified, objective and patient-loving MD.

I assume they use a PIC line for these IVs and even though they can last much longer then regular IVs they still can have problems and need to be moved. Anything less then a PIC line would have to moved even more often.

David Corcoran
Science Times

To the editor:
In his article, "Doctors Do Know Things Patients Don't Know," Dr. Sepkowitz writes, "What happens if something goes awry, if a decision shared or even directed by a patient turns out to be the wrong one? On whose desk does that buck stop? "

This is an amazing statement for a licensed physician to make. The prescription of medication is the doctor's medical - and legal - responsibility as is the diagnosis of disease. Lyme disease should have been considered in the differential diagnosis at the first look, not waiting until the patient brought up the possibility, since New York State leads the country in the number of reported cases of Lyme disease and has for decades. The longer treatment is delayed, the more disseminated and persistent the disease becomes. It is an infection after all.

To begin treatment with IV therapy is not the usual first course of treatment of Lyme disease as there are many antibiotics and combinations of antibiotics that are very effective against the disease. Prescribing IV therapy sounds like the move of a doctor who has little or no knowledge of Lyme disease and has no interest in finding out more. Had the patient had severe neurological symptoms, perhaps this move would have been proper. We are not told her symptoms, however.

I experienced a similar cavalier treatment for Lyme disease. Before being prescribed IV therapy, I had to wait 7 weeks until an infectious disease specialist returned from his vacation in France. I overheard my doctor telling a colleague after she consulted with that specialist, "He said to go ahead and give her IV - it won't kill her and it will get her off your back." This from a doctor who had never seen me. I can really relate to Sepkowitz's patient's experience.

He states: "As we discussed the next step, she told me she didn't want additional antibiotics. I confess to a longish moment of satisfaction: doing nothing had been the best thing to do."

Had he been a careful physician, he would have researched the disease at the very least and would have known that administration of antibiotics to a Lyme disease patient can trigger the Jarish-Herksheimer reaction, the aggravation of symptoms caused by the toxins released when the disease-causing organism is killed off. With continued treatment, the Lyme disease patient begins to recover and many reach a very comfortable manageable state. There is no "cure" for the disease as it can become dormant and there is no test to prove cure.

This article is neither charming or endearing or clever. Nor does it excite any sympathy for the plight of the doctor. It makes me want to retch and to avoid this physician and any who feel he is adept - and discontinue my contributions to Sloan Kettering if his attitude is prevalent there.

Wonderfully stated! Bless you!

Dulca, a BIG THANK YOU for taking the extra time to delete all the bold quotes so it was easier on all of our eyes! God bless you... I so enjoy reading everyone's comments without the BOLD "quotes"; I always learn a lot.

Bettyg, Iowa

and yipppeee, christelleny!

I think some of you are doing a disservice to the Lyme community with your constant pushing of this mysterious government/corporate/judicial conspiracy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by SteveInMinnesota:
There are a lot of angry paranoid people on this site. Not one person here really has any idea of the facts of the case and yet most of you are ready to burn this doctor at the stake. Although his essay was sarcastic, he did seem open-minded and honest.

---

Paranoid? In some cases,perhaps, perhaps not. Angry? Oh. Hell. Yes.

Anybody who has had this disease for any length of time, who has done any research on this disease and the way it has been handled by the medical establishment, is angry.

No one is looking to lynch this doctor, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't critique his essay. Why was sarcasm necessary to convey his point? Lyme is a serious illness, doesn't this tone seem inappropriate? At a time Lyme is being so badly dealt with by the medical community, why would a high ranking doctor at a prestigious institution choose to write an article that boils down to "Ha, ha, silly woman thought she had Lyme and was wrong! Doctors rule!"

I don't know what your experiences with Lyme are, Steve, but many here have had experiences with doctors who are unforgivably ignorant about Lyme. We are talking about doctors who make flat out incorrect assertions about Lyme, statements like "There is no Lyme in this state" when a thirty second Google search would show that even the CDC says otherwise. This sort of thing happens all the time. When it comes to tick-borne diseases, sadly, patients often are more educated than their doctors. It shouldn't be this way, but this is the current situation. The political situation in NY makes Lyme patients even more tense about this kind of article.

And to add insult, the NYT choose to run this during Lyme Disease Awareness month. This is a state with a LOT of cases. Don't you think they could have done a more relevant and helpful article, in view of the real dangers to their readers? What they did instead was spotlight a case that wasn't Lyme (the doc says) and was written in a way that insulted the patient.

My point is that this doctor 1) tested the patient for Lyme when requested, 2) listened to his patient's concerns and suggestions, 3) and most importantly, appeared to be open-minded.

So he is arogant and sarcastic - most doctors are.