Henry wrote:However, to assume that one bitten by a tick is infected by any or all of them, and that a polyinfection is the cause of Lyme disease -- without adequate proof-- strains credulity.
I don't understand what you wrote. Lyme Disease is caused by Borrelia burgdorferi. Ticks can transmit quite a lot of other pathogens, not only Borrelia burgdorferi. You can be infected with one, two, three, or if you are very unlucky maybe with even more, of these pathogens after one tick bite.
Henry wrote:One does not have to resort to a "MAYBE", when there are ways to detect such infections and treat them properly.
Of course - there are tests and also clinical judgement.
Henry wrote:There is no evidence that any of them have anything to do with the symptoms some ascribe to chronic Lyme disease anyway. That is just another myth.
I disagree entirely. I personally know people who, after being bitten by a tick, had bull's eye rash, positive tests for babesiois (parasitemia seen under microscope plus elevated antibodies), significantly elevated antibodies to bartonella, positive rtPCRs for bartonella, elevated antibodies to anaplasmosis - all at once after one tick bite - and came down with many different chronic symptoms, like debilitating flu-like fatigue, muscle-skeletal, neurological and other symptoms. And they got much better with antimicrobial treatment (treated longer than 4 weeks). The IDSA guidelines fail again, those guidelines look well only on paper, but in a real life they are very often uneffective. This is what happens when guidelines are made prematurely, whereas much more studies should be done and patients and their physicians should have a full, not one-sided, information.