> But I'd rather humor the quackish side of chronic lyme and see some progress being made, That would have the opposite effect, because many (or likely most) o

> But I'd rather humor the quackish side of chronic lyme and see some progress being made, That would have the opposite effect, because many (or likely most) of them never actually had Lyme disease. That’s the problem: “Chronic Lyme” has attracted too many pseudoscience practitioners who lazily blame everything on undetectable Lyme. They diagnose based on symptoms alone and/or employ tests with known extreme false positive rates while dismissing mainstream tests that have been validated. The more you mix those false patients into the real Lyme population, the more you dilute the real signal from actual patients. Humoring the quackery doesn’t advance the science. If you want progress to be made in a field, it’s important to be diligent about keeping the quackery out.