Something starting to really itch here, and, no, it’s not a tick bite. Is there a reliable scientific cite† for this PR piece’s statement that “antibiotics don

Something starting to really itch here, and, no, it’s not a tick bite. Is there a reliable scientific cite† for this PR piece’s statement that “antibiotics don't work for up to 20% of people with [Lyme disease]”? Because the only “20%” I’m seeing commonly mentioned elsewhere describes the 10-20% of patients who develop post-infection sequelae. Which is NOT the same as “antibiotics don’t work”. Or has Stanford PR just put its size thirteen in its mouth? (†And I don’t mean the “Lyme-literate” quacks and other AltMed scammers.)