Lyme Disease Controversy: Use and Misuse of Language

Raphael B. Stricker

doi:10.7326/0003-4819-137-9-200211050-00029

Letters |5 November 2002

Lyme Disease Controversy: Use and Misuse of Language

Raphael B. Stricker, MD

Article, Author, and Disclosure Information

TO THE EDITOR:

In dividing physicians who treat Lyme disease into “rationalists” and “empiricists,” Dr. Sigal (1) makes one of the oldest mistakes in science: He assumes that we know practically everything about Lyme disease and that empiricism based on clinical observation, animal modeling, and newer research techniques cannot add to this knowledge. The corollary to this narrow reasoning is that if we could eliminate descriptive terms for empirical observations in chronic Lyme disease, the disease itself would disappear. This deconstructionist view is scientifically irrational.

In addition to espousing an untenable philosophy, Sigal makes two fatal clinical errors: He ignores co-infections with other tick-borne agents, such as Babesia, Ehrlichia, and Bartonella species, that complicate the clinical course of Lyme disease, and he disregards animal models demonstrating persistence of Borrelia burgdorferi infection despite “adequate” antibiotic regimens (2). In any other field, these observations would be cause for concern and significant research spending. Thanks to Sigal's “rationalism,” we are assured that there is no need to worry about these unresolved issues when it comes to Lyme disease.

FULL TEXT

PDF

Not Available

Letters |5 November 2002

Lyme Disease Controversy: Use and Misuse of Language

See Also

Content

Information For

Services

Awards and Cover

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

Letters |5 November 2002

Lyme Disease Controversy: Use and Misuse of Language

See Also

Content

Information For

Services

Awards and Cover

Other Resources

Follow Annals On

You need a subscription to this content to use this feature.