We would like to point out that laboratory values as much as imaging methods (ultrasound, CT, MRT, etc.) should be considered as supporting methods for a diagnosis. There are important factors that a laboratory cannot detect and that an imaging process cannot reveal, despite an important advance in the technical development. After all, a MRI is not a microscope yet.
In general, all scientists (including us) should be careful affirming that everything that we cannot prove does not exist. Together, we should conduct research and look out. This is what we stand and campaign for.
Otherwise, patients will continue to go to several doctors and clinics (involving repeated diagnostics, unsatisfactory symptomatic therapies, long work incapacities, invalidities, etc.). It is also an economical factor as patients will have to undergo many further tests until the correct diagnosis is met and an efficient therapy is found.
Surely, there are studies that can be interpreted incorrectly or even show methodological weaknesses. This can always happen; especially when it comes to a statistical evaluation of a study (we all know that). However, we do not think that all cited studies, especially the ones taken from renowned journals, are incorrectly interpreted and evaluated. We believe that there is a big and interesting field of very complex interdependencies that is yet to be studied. Just because there is only little literature about co-infections and mixed infections does not mean that they do not exist. This should be an incentive for doing more research about it (see below and in the chapter “symptoms”). We are not alone with this opinion. Also the Entomological Society of America and Dr. John Aucott from the Johns Hopkins University see these problems and ask for more research and a factual discussion.
Unknown borrelia strains
In fact, a new borrelia strain has been discovered as human-pathogenic and was found at first in the Pacific region, the Borrelia miyamotoi (see: General Information). We surely do not have yet adequate testing methods to detect it. Therefore, those patients can still be negative in an antibody test for borreliosis, even though they are positive. And maybe there are many more of these unknown and human-pathogenic strains.
Let us not generalise
The general medical opinion affirms that a spontaneous healing of borreliosis is possible. Maybe these persons are infected but not sick? PD Dr. Hassler states the contrary in his studies.
The general medical opinion likes to quote Klempner’s study (from 2001) when affirming that a long term antibiotic treatment does not bring “meaningful medical benefit”. However, this study included also patients with “seronegative” borreliosis, which is said to be “inexistent” in the late stadium (or chronic stadium). There is therefore a contradiction. However, such contradictions can be found on both sides; the Embers’ study can be discussed just as well.
Is Ceftriaxon adequate or enough?
From own experience, we are able to confirm the Klempner’s new study (from 2013). A mono-therapy (using only one substance) with ceftriaxon does not lead to any improvements or disappearing of the patient’s symptoms, not even in the long term. It is effective against the native spiral form of borrelias. But the therapy must also tackle persister forms of borrelias and from other pathogens, as well as co-infections and biofilms. This is the reason that the therapy should include a combination of antibiotics (see: Antibiotic Treatment, literature (1) and General Information, literature (2) and below). In the same way, even doxycycline as a mono-therapy may not be efficient enough.
The treatment with ceftriaxon should be reconsidered, since it does not attack persistent forms of borrelias or other pathogens, nor does it help against co-infections and biofilms (see: Antibiotic Treatment). A combination of distinct antibiotic substances must be employed in order to achieve this. These substances must have reduced risks and side effects, thus better metabolised by the body as the ones used currently (ceftriaxon and doxycycline). This way, we get a better risk/success relation during the therapy.
We believe that it is not correct (in a factual discussion) to state that one “opinion” has exclusively good and scientifically correct studies, and that the opposite “opinion” has exclusively wrong and scientifically incorrect studies. However, it is definitely wrong to state that there is no literature available regarding either of those “opinions” on borrelia and co-infections. Also other infections and tick-borne diseases can cause complaints. It is not always Lyme disease. A patient can also have two or more infections at the same time.