I had recently read a paper by a professor in Stanford Psychiatry that made very exaggerated claims that would go on to not be replicated to the degree original

I had recently read a paper by a professor in Stanford Psychiatry that made very exaggerated claims that would go on to not be replicated to the degree originally made, which I had expected as the treatment used was not a major improvement on the existing methods and that researchers from even prestigious universities might be incentivized to not investigate or report the full truth if they might benefit from it in some way. While it's interesting that the treatment was "successful" and that symptoms continued, this isn't really a strong statement of support for something like Chronic Lyme Disease or at least its widespread presentation - much more likely a statement of support for Lyme Disease bacteria not always being treated by the regimen, or potentially even that it's easy for someone to get a second infection and have no significant immunity.