Cobwebby, thanks for bringing this up.
Chuck, yes - good catch. So we can dismiss the Mathers paper from evidence. That leaves Willie Burgdorfer.
Here's a reference to Burgdorfer's findings, in a paper from the CDC. Apparently Burgdorfer says that about 5% of the ticks had generalized infections that included spirochetes in the salivary glands. He's known to be opposed to the IDSA disease model, so it wouldn't surprise me if he follows that observation to its most conservative (in terms of protecting patients) implication
, which is that in, say, 3% of tick bites, 24 hours of attachment is not required for the transmission of the organisms, and hence the disease. It could happen as soon as the tick begins feeding. I'll have to gather papers to see exactly what he said.
It implies yet another way patients get reassured they can't have Lyme disease. Say, they get bit, they remove the tick promptly and take it to their doctor for testing, he throws it out and tells them they're safe because they removed it fast, then a couple of months later they get "non-specific, subjective" symptoms of Lyme (joint pain but no measurable swelling, headaches, and malaise, say) but their doctor dismisses the possibility and either refuses to test them, or tests them with the faulty two-tier test, which comes back negative, and voila... Another CFS/ME or fibromyalgia, etc. patient is created.
http://www.healthunit.org/hazards/docum ... _24hrs.pdf