Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism

Paul G. Auwaerter, Johan S. Bakken, Raymond J. Dattwyler, J. Stephen Dumler, John J. Halperin, Edward McSweegan, Robert B. Nadelman, Susan O'Connell, Sunil K. Sood, Arthur Weinstein, Gary P. Wormser

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

13 Scopus citations


Johnson and Stricker published an opinion piece in the Journal of Medical Ethics presenting their perspective on the 2008 agreement between the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA) and the Connecticut Attorney General with regard to the 2006 IDSA treatment guideline for Lyme disease. Their writings indicate that these authors hold unconventional views of a relatively common tick-transmitted bacterial infection caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that their opinions would clash with the IDSA's evidence-based guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. Their allegations of conflict of interest against the IDSA resemble those made against the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in 2000, which were found to be baseless. It is the responsibility of all physicians and medical scientists to stand up to antiscientific, baseless and unethical attacks on those who support an evidence-based approach to caring for patients.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)68-73
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Medical Ethics
Issue number2
StatePublished - Feb 2011
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Scientific evidence and best patient care practices should guide the ethics of Lyme disease activism'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this