The article linked to below is also very pertinent to Senate Bill 296 (Montana, tabled March 2013) and major issues with treatment paradigms it attempted to address.
As for antibiotics, one of the problems Lyme patients face is that IDSA guidelines specify 28 days of antibiotics and insurance companies don't have to pay beyond that time. So, even if you have the great fortune of an early diagnosis, you may not have access to adequate treatment, as 28 days of an antibiotic is often not enough time, and does not address coinfections well enough on its own.
If you are diagnosed months or years after infection, I believe (based on substantial reading of peer reviewed studies and papers on the behavior of Lyme spyrochetes, cysts, and biofilms) a round of antibiotics this short could actually do more harm than good. As a biologist, I feel that my tremendous progress to date is substantial enough to support that longer term antibiotics were needed for my progress so far.
As a biologist, I can't draw inference from my single experience to the enormous group of people suffering from lyme---but it would be better founded inference (that would be supported by available science and overwhelming evidence from patients) than the statements currently made by IDSA and CDC, which are not supported by or in keeping with best available science nor clear, logical reasoning or any type of discernable or transparent decision framework for their conclusions or protocols.
Anyway, good blog and good article (link and excerpt below):
This post could take me into some pretty dangerous territory in the fight against Lyme - how to treat?It really should be simple bacterial infection = antibiotics (abx). For some reason, researchers have persisted in claiming that 30 days of abx will cure Lyme, and if you're still ill after that, then you don't have Lyme. EVEN IF YOU STILL HAVE A POSITIVE BLOOD TEST.Keeping it short and sweet: this causes lots of problems for people with late diagnoses.