U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

75–161PDF 2012

GLOBAL CHALLENGES IN DIAGNOSING AND

MANAGING LYME DISEASE—CLOSING

KNOWLEDGE GAPS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 17, 2012

Serial No. 112–169

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

ROBERT TURNER, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Stephen W. Barthold, Ph.D., distinguished professor, Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Center of Comparative Medicine, School 

of Veterinary Medicine, University of California, Davis ................................... 8

Raphael Stricker, M.D., vice president, International Lyme and Associated 

Diseases Society ................................................................................................... 24

Mark Eshoo, Ph.D., director, New Technology Development, Abbott ................. 46

Ms. Patricia Smith, president, Lyme Disease Association ................................... 54

Mr. Evan White, Lyme disease patient ................................................................. 76

Ms. Stella Huyshe-Shires, chair, Lyme Disease Action ........................................ 83

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Stephen W. Barthold, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................ 10

Raphael Stricker, M.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................ 26

Mark Eshoo, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ............................................................... 49

Ms. Patricia Smith: Prepared statement ............................................................... 57

Mr. Evan White: Prepared statement .................................................................... 79

Ms. Stella Huyshe-Shires, chair, Lyme Disease Action ........................................ 86

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 104

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 105

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, and Human Rights: Statement from the Infectious Diseases Soceity 

of America ............................................................................................................. 106

(1)

GLOBAL CHALLENGES IN DIAGNOSING AND 

MANAGING LYME DISEASE—CLOSING 

KNOWLEDGE GAPS 

TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:07 p.m., in room 

2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. The hearing will come to order. Good 

afternoon, and welcome to our witnesses and to everyone who is 

joining us for this first ever congressional hearing examining the 

global challenges in diagnosing, treating, and managing Lyme disease. 

My personal commitment to combating Lyme disease is longstanding, going back 20 years, when one of our witnesses, Pat 

Smith, attended one of my town hall meetings in Wall Township, 

New Jersey, and asked me to get involved. I did. On September 28, 

1993, I offered an amendment to establish a Lyme disease program 

through the Environmental Hygiene Agency of the U.S. Department of the Army. It passed and became law. 

On May 5, 1998, I introduced a comprehensive, bipartisan Lyme 

disease bill, H.R. 3795, the Lyme Disease Initiative Act of 1998, 

which had at its core the establishment of a task force, an advisory 

committee to comprehensively investigate Lyme with at least four 

major areas in mind: Protection, improved surveillance and reporting, accurate diagnosis, and physician knowledge. I reintroduced 

the bill again in 1999, 2001, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2009, and have a 

pending bill that I introduced in 2011. 

I would note parenthetically that in 1998 I also introduced a 

comprehensive law to combat autism despite significant opposition 

in the Congress and at NIH and CDC that closely paralleled the 

Lyme bill’s struggle. That became law in 2000. Last year, I authored the Combating Autism Reauthorization Act of 2011, which 

was signed into law in the fall with the support of—not opposition, 

but the support of NIH and CDC. If only we had done the same 

with Lyme disease legislation in the late 1990s; there has been a 

missed decade on Lyme. 

As I have met scores of patients suffering the devastating effects 

of chronic Lyme who only got well after aggressive treatment by 

2

Lyme-literate physicians, I have been dismayed and, frankly, angered by the unwillingness of some to take a fresh, comprehensive 

look at this insidious disease. My current bill, H.R. 2557, simply establishes a Tick-Borne Disease Advisory Committee, like we have 

been trying to do since 1998, with the requirement of ensuring diversity of valid scientific opinion, a ‘‘broad spectrum of viewpoints’’ 

to pull language out of the legislation, serving on the committee. 

I would note to my colleagues that in Europe, Lyme disease syndromes were described as early as 1883, and by the mid-1930s, 

neurologic manifestations and the association with ticks were recognized. In the United States, Lyme disease was not recognized 

until the early 1970s, when a statistically improbable cluster of pediatric arthritis occurred in the region around Lyme, Connecticut. 

This outbreak was investigated by Dr. Allen Steere and others 

from Yale and stimulated intense clinical and epidemiologic research. In 1981, Dr. Willy Burgdorfer, an NIH researcher at the 

Rocky Mountain Laboratories, identified the spiral-shaped bacteria, 

or spirochetes, causing Lyme disease and made the connection to 

the deer or black-legged tick. 

Lyme disease is the most common vector-borne illness in the 

United States and is also endemic in parts of Europe and Asia and 

recently has been confirmed to be endemic in the Amazon region 

of Brazil. In Europe, the highest rates are in Eastern and Central 

Europe. Recent surveillance studies have described growing problems in Australia and Canada. 

In the United States, Lyme disease has been reported in 49 

States—all except Hawaii—and is most common in the northeastern and north-central States and in northern California into 

Oregon. Over 30,000 confirmed cases were reported to the CDC in 

2010, making it the sixth most common reportable disease in the 

U.S. and the second most reportable in the Northeast. CDC has estimated that actual new cases may be 10 times more than the reported number, indicating roughly 300,000 cases in 2010 alone. 

About 85,000 cases are reported annually in Europe as of 2006, according to the WHO, but that was recognized as a gross underestimate. 

In North America, the only Borrelia species to cause Lyme disease is Borrelia burgdorferi. In Europe, Borrelia burgdorferi and at 

least four other species cause the disease. Different species are associated with different manifestations of the disease. There are numerous strains of Borrelia, which may affect the ability to evade 

the immune system, the ability to invade certain organs or tissues, 

and the response to antibiotics. Clinical manifestations of Lyme are 

usually divided into three stages, although the descriptions of the 

stages vary. 

Few diseases have aroused such a high level of emotion and controversy among the public, physicians, and researchers than Lyme 

disease. There are two distinct views of Lyme disease, each citing 

specific scientific evidence to support its claims, while outcomes research is limited and conflicting. 

One view, promoted by the Infectious Disease Society of America, 

is that the disease is ‘‘hard to catch and easy to cure’’ and denies 

the existence of chronic Lyme disease or persistent infection with 

the Lyme bacteria. Any treatment other than a short course of 

3

antibiotics is considered too risky. Patients who do not fit the paradigm may have few options outside of psychiatric evaluation. 

The alternative view, promoted by the International Lyme and 

Associated Disease Society and also by numerous academic researchers in the U.S. and around the globe, says that the science 

is too unsettled to be definitive, and there could be one or more 

causes of persistent symptoms after initial treatment in an individual who has been inflicted with the agent of Lyme disease. 

These causes include the possibility of persistent infection or 

postinfectious process or a combination of both. 

These are not academic concerns, however, because the patient’s 

health is at risk. Unfortunately, some academic researchers believe 

that some of their colleagues are more interested in winning arguments than moving the science forward. Three areas central to the 

controversy are: The quality of diagnostics, post-treatment, and 

available treatment options in light of clinical guidelines. 

Current diagnostic tests commonly used to detect the spirochetes 

that cause Lyme disease rather than detect whether the patient 

has developed antibodies to these pathogen, CDC recommends a 

two-tier serological testing but cautions that the two-tier system 

could be used only for surveillance purposes and not for diagnosis. 

Part of the difficulty in clinically managing suspected Lyme disease 

is that the CDC protocol is frequently not only used but required 

for diagnosis. 

A study in the Netherlands of eight commercially available 

ELISAs and five immunoblots found that they had widely divergent sensitivity and specificity and a very poor concordance and 

concluded that their ‘‘very high variable sensitivity and specificity 

further puts the much-advocated two-tier testing strategy into 

question.’’ In addition, two of the authors of the July 3, 2007, article on an antibiotic resistance element were Julie Boylan and 

Frank Gherardini of NIAID’s Rocky Mountain Laboratories. And 

they stated, ‘‘It is a multistage disorder that is difficult to diagnose 

at any stage of the disease, as well as being difficult to treat during 

the later symptoms.’’

Dr. Mark Eshoo, the head of new technology at the IBIS Biosciences Division of Abbott Laboratories, will tell us today some exciting information regarding the development of diagnostic tools 

that hopefully will move us past a lot of the controversy. 

Then there is the issue of persistence. IDSA has repeatedly stated that there is no convincing evidence that the Lyme Borrelia persists after standard antibiotic treatment. ‘‘Convincing’’ is clearly a 

subjective term, however. There is substantial evidence of the persistence of it after treatment with antibiotics. There are numerous 

documented case studies of persistence in humans after antibody 

treatment, and our witnesses may comment on additional evidence 

for post-treatment persistence in humans. 

Additionally, one of our speakers today, Dr. Stephen Barthold, 

one of the top experts in the country, and I am sure in the world, 

on animal models—Dr. Barthold will describe published and yet-tobe-published experimental studies that provide compelling evidence 

for the Borrelia burgdorferi persistence following an antibiotic 

treatment in animal model studies and their potential significance 

for human medicine. 

4

Numerous studies have been conducted of the mechanism by 

which Borrelia may evade the immune system and antibiotics. 

Studies have suggested that resistance to antibiotics might be due 

to formation of different morphological forms of it, including cell 

wall deficient forms and biofilm-like colonies. 

Contrary to the known scientific evidence, in a March 21, 2008, 

letter to Members of Congress, the Infectious Disease Society of 

America stated, ‘‘Not only is this assertion [that the notion that 

some spirochetes can persist despite conventional treatment 

courses] microbiologically implausible, there are no convincing published scientific data supporting the existence of chronic Lyme disease.’’ It is problematic that the Infectious Disease Society of America would write to Congress trying to discourage support of legislation, saying that post-treatment persistence is microbiologically implausible. 

Additionally, in an article, ‘‘A Chronic Appraisal of ‘Chronic 

Lyme Disease’,’’ published in 2007 in the New England Journal of 

Medicine, several IDSA physicians and a CDC colleague made the 

statement that ‘‘chronic Lyme disease’’—and this is a quote—

‘‘which is equated with chronic B. burgdorferi infection is a misnomer.’’ While this statement has been referred to repeatedly in 

other correspondence, calling chronic Lyme a misnomer does not 

seem reasonable or supportable since it goes far past expressing 

uncertainty. It seems clear that the intent of the statement was to 

firmly slam the door on the notion that there possibly could be 

chronic Lyme. 

The final major area of controversy is the significance of the Infectious Disease Society of America’s treatment guidelines, which 

directly impact patients and their ability to get treatment. Guidelines should be developed based on the best science, and there has 

been extreme controversy regarding the restrictive nature of the 

IDSA guidelines. The guidelines do not allow for the possibility of 

chronic infection and severely limit physician discretion on treating 

the disease. 

Finally—and I would ask unanimous consent that my full statement be made a part of the record—I would point out to my colleagues that we did invite the Infectious Disease Society of America 

to be here, the NIH, as well as the Centers for Disease Control. We 

were told that the IDSA person who would have been here had a 

‘‘scheduling conflict.’’ And I would just make very clear at the outset of this hearing that I will reissue an invitation to them and 

fully expect that they will testify before our subcommittee at a date 

that will hopefully be very, very soon. 

I would like to now yield to Ms. Bass for any opening comments 

she might have. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank you for holding 

this hearing on Lyme disease. 

And I also want to thank today’s witnesses in research advocacy 

and other efforts to bring greater clarity to the nature of this disease. Your work has been critical to understanding the disease’s 

continued emergence and what measures are needed to prevent 

new infections and treat those who are infected. 

Mr. Chairman, I also want to commend you for your leadership 

on this issue. And, as you have noted, Lyme disease continues to 

5

infect and affect a great number of North Americans, including our 

own citizens. We can and must do more to control its spread and 

work on new surveillance, control, and treatment efforts to mitigate 

future spread. I understand that you do have legislation that you 

mentioned that you have introduced several times, and I am happy 

to join as a cosponsor of that legislation. 

I know that we have all heard stories of young people and even 

adults who suffer from extreme fatigue and joint pain due to Lyme 

disease. While Lyme disease is rarely fatal, symptoms can at times 

be debilitating. And as I know we will hear from our witnesses 

today, I, like others, know people who have suffered from this disease. And one of the things that has been very troubling to people 

I know is that the disease was not diagnosed at first. 

And so I know CDC reports that there are a few cases in California. And I would actually question that and believe that it is 

probably underreported, especially in the Central Valley area of 

California. CDC just says there were 200 cases in 2010, and I 

would venture to say that I wonder if that is actually an 

undercount. 

In June 2012, there was an article in The New York Times that 

says that we are all still trying to understand the transmission of 

Lyme disease. I wanted to quote from that article:

‘‘Deer ticks are aptly named, in a sense; a northeastern deer 

can carry over 1,000 of these ticks on its body. But as far as 

humans are concerned, the ticks might be more relevantly 

called mouse ticks. That is because white-footed mice and 

other small mammals, not deer, are now known by scientists 

to be major carriers of the disease.’’

While long thought that deer contribute greatly to Lyme disease 

transmission, other animals are now suspected, including birds. 

I hope current research and data collection is leading to new possible solutions for areas in communities hardest hit but also on the 

front lines where we are seeing new cases. I would note that some 

studies suggest increasing temperatures and changes in precipitation patterns may be partially to blame for increased spread. If 

changes in weather patterns are to blame, I think we should take 

a look at the surge in cases in the U.S. and understand if there 

is a relationship. Surveillance and control is critically important in 

today’s expanding field, where more and more States and counties 

are seeing new cases. I imagine some of the data that shows an increase in incidence is probably due to improved detection. 

I welcome witnesses’ recommendations on what can be done policy-wise to address Lyme disease and other similar diseases. As we 

move to control this disease, CDC and others report that the best 

way to prevent infection in the first place is really around awareness. Local health departments and agencies appear to be increasing awareness, raising efforts as the Nation enters the spring and 

summer months. 

As we look at current and future funding, how can we effectively 

distribute limited resources to improve our Nation’s response to 

this emerging disease? 

And I know your legislation essentially would call for that. The 

task force that would be looking at it would look at the resources 

6

and figure out the best way. I don’t know if that is correct in my 

understanding in reading it. 

It is my hope that as the U.S. continues to lead on Lyme disease 

that we can also work with the World Health Organization to 

prioritize the disease’s continued emergence in other regions, including in Asia. 

I thank you for today’s hearing. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you, Ms. Bass. 

I would like to now recognize, without objection, two Members—

they are not members of the subcommittee, but very, very welcomed today, beginning with Mr. Gibson, the gentleman from New 

York. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman and to the ranking 

member. I want to begin by just thanking you for your leadership 

on this critical issue and for the way that you work together, which 

I think is so vitally important. 

I want to also recognize Mr. Wolf. I know that all these Members 

here today have really been working this issue for Lyme awareness, diagnosis, treatment, and coverage from insurance companies 

very hard. 

And I wanted to be here because, from listening to you, Mr. 

Chairman, I think that we have ended up here for the same reason. This has been constituent-driven. This is a major public health 

issue in upstate New York. And, you know, shortly after retiring 

from the Army and returning home a couple years ago, it was clear 

to me that—a couple things. One, there are so many folks in upstate New York that are suffering from this affliction and are confused—confused because they look to the medical community to get 

well, and we find the medical community divided. 

We need to bring them together. And I think the task force is 

a great way to do it. We also appropriated last year in the Congress moneys for better research, awareness research toward diagnosis. But I also think it is vitally important that we follow up to 

make sure that those appropriations, those moneys, end up in the 

right place. Because I know that we have appropriated money in 

the past and ended up with the same results. So we have to make 

sure that we get the right folks that are doing the research on this. 

But I am optimistic. I am optimistic because, coming out of the 

constituent-driven symposium that we held in upstate New York, 

we were beginning, I think, to find some common ground. We actually had participation from some of those on both sides. Insurance 

companies were there, as well. And perhaps most encouraging is 

research which I think will be published, perhaps in the next year, 

about really how co-infections, I think, can go a long way to explain 

the chronic illness that the constituents are incurring attendant to 

a tick-borne bite. 

So, you know, toward that end, I will end where I began by 

thanking the chairman and the ranking member for holding this 

hearing. I look forward to hearing from the witnesses, and certainly want to stay engaged in moving us forward in a positive 

way. 

And I yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibson. 

Thank you for your leadership. 

7

I would like to yield to Chairman Frank Wolf. 

Mr. WOLF. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and 

the ranking member for the hearing. 

This is a big issue in my congressional district, out in Loudoun 

Valley all the way out to the Shenandoah Valley, and we now see 

it spreading throughout the entire State of Virginia. For the longest period of time, you have long been a lone voice. And had it not 

been for you sort of crying in the wilderness, if you would, to force 

the different groups to come together—so I just want to second 

what was said and thank you for your leadership here. 

I look forward to something very good whereby we can come to 

the day that there is a consensus on how we can treat Lyme and 

how we can diagnosis it, how we can treat it, but also how we can 

prevent it. 

And, with that, I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Wolf. 

I would like to now introduce our very distinguished panel, beginning first with Dr. Stephen Barthold, who is a professor of medical pathology at the University of California, Davis and director of 

the U.C. Davis Center for Comparative Medicine. He served as a 

captain in the U.S. Army Veterinary Corps and at the U.S. Army 

Research Institute of Environmental Medicine and was a professor 

of comparative medicine at the Yale School of Medicine. Dr. 

Barthold was elected to the National Academies’ Institute of Medicine in 2001 and is the recipient of several career awards. His research has been funded continuously by the NIH for 35 years, including a focus on Lyme for the past 25 years. 

We will then hear from Dr. Raphael Stricker, who received his 

medical degree and training in internal medicine at Columbia University in New York and is currently medical director of a multispecialty practice in San Francisco. Dr. Stricker is past president 

and currently vice president of the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society. He is also a member of the Federation of 

Clinical Immunology Societies and the American Federation for 

Medical Research. He is a recipient of the American Medical Association Award for Physician Excellence and an Outstanding Reviewer Award from the Annals of Internal Medicine. Areas of special interest include tick-borne diseases. 

We will then hear from Dr. Mark Eshoo, who earned his Ph.D. 

from the University of California, Davis and performed his 

postdoctoral studies at Stanford University. He has over 20 years 

of research experience in the field of genomics and genetic analysis. 

Dr. Eshoo’s research has resulted in the testing of many thousands 

of ticks collected from the U.S. and Europe for a wide range of tickborne pathogens. He has led the development of sensitive procedures to detect tick-borne pathogens from a variety of clinical specimens, and is the director of new technology development at IBIS 

Biosciences. 

We will then hear from Pat Smith, who is in her 15th year as 

president of the national nonprofit Lyme Disease Association. She 

is a member of Columbia University’s Lyme and Tick-Borne Diseases Research Advisory Committee, the Food and Drug Administration’s PESP Partnership to promote avoidance of tick exposure, 

and an advisor to the Lyme Research Alliance. She is also former 

8

chair of the New Jersey Governor’s Lyme Disease Advisory Council 

and was the FDA’s 2011 Lyme prevention conference session cochair with the CDC. She has spent 27 years advocating for Lyme 

disease mitigation and combating this disease, raising money for 

both research and a children’s fund. 

We will then hear from Evan White, who has utilized his experience in recovery from chronic Lyme disease to serve as an advocate 

for the treatment rights of Lyme disease patients for nearly 20 

years. Evan has testified before a U.S. Senate subcommittee on behalf of himself and Lyme disease patients nationwide and has been 

a featured speaker at numerous Lyme disease functions. Evan’s 

story as a patient and advocate has been covered by several major 

news media. Evan currently lives in New York City with his wife 

Michelle, where he is a labor and employment attorney and cofounder of the firm White Harris. 

Then we will hear—and this is by way of hookup with the UK—

Ms. Stella Huyshe-Shires, who started her professional life as a 

plant pathologist before undertaking a research fellowship with 

IBM into the use of databases in plant research and moving into 

computing. She contracted Lyme disease in 1999 while working in 

her garden in Devon, United Kingdom, and was diagnosed 3 years 

later. She was retired from her IT job in the National Health Service on grounds of ill health. She joined Lyme Disease Action in 

2007 and became its chairman in 2009. And we thank her for her 

willingness to join us at this hearing today from England. 

I would like to now ask Dr. Barthold if you could proceed with 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN W. BARTHOLD, PH.D., DISTINGUISHED PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF PATHOLOGY, 

MICROBIOLOGY AND IMMUNOLOGY, CENTER OF COMPARATIVE MEDICINE, SCHOOL OF VETERINARY MEDICINE, UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, DAVIS 

Dr. BARTHOLD. Well, thank you for the opportunity to speak to 

this subcommittee. I appreciate the recognition of what we have 

been doing. 

As you pointed out, I have been working on Lyme disease for 25 

years in animal model systems. And one of the things that has intrigued me the most is the fact that Borrelia persists in its 

immunologically competent hosts as the rule, not the norm, and so 

persistence is part of its biological behavior. And this has been 

shown in 100 percent of mice, rats, hamsters, guinea pigs, gerbils, 

dogs, and nonhuman primates—two different species of nonhuman 

primates. 

And so, when you have an organism that is a professional at persisting and evading host immune clearance, you have a problem 

when you approach it with antibiotics. The antibiotics are likely to 

fail under some circumstances, if not many circumstances. 

And so, this has been challenged. I find myself in a rather contentious field, at this point, coming out of the mainstream of Lyme 

disease research into one in which I am somewhat of a pariah, in 

terms of the established medical opinion. 

In animal models, we know that early treatment during the preimmune phase of the infection, we can cure the animals. But durVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:45 Oct 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\071712\75161 HFA PsN: SHIRL
9

ing persistent infection, 100 percent of the animals remain persistently infected after antibiotic treatment. And we are not alone. 

This has been described in a number of different laboratories: One 

in Finland, one in New York, one in Louisiana, one in Connecticut, 

and then in our own lab in California. It has been described in 

mice, in dogs, in nonhuman primates. It has been described with 

a number of different antibiotics, including ceftriaxone, doxycycline, 

tigecycline, amoxicillin, azithromycin. 

And all of these studies have pointed to some commonality, some 

rather convincing evidence of spirochetes which are unusual in that 

they can no longer be cultured. We put clonal populations into a 

mouse, but we get these nonculturable forms out. And our 

naysayers have said this is residual DNA debris. But that ‘‘DNA 

debris’’ is transcribing RNA, which means it is a metabolically viable organism. We can acquire the infection feeding ticks upon the 

treated the animals, so-called xenodiagnosis. And we can look in 

the ticks and we see morphologically intact spirochetes that are 

viable. We can also look in the tissues of the animals that have 

been treated with antibiotics and we see morphologically intact spirochetal forms. 

Ticks can acquire the infection. They can transmit the infection 

back into naive hosts. We can transplant the infectious material 

with tissues containing organisms from the treated mice to naive 

animals. 

And in my written testimony, I have included some unpublished 

data, which we hopefully will get published in the next year or so, 

that shows after 12 months after treatment of mice we see resurgence of spirochetes in very large numbers, equivalent to numbers 

of wild-type infection in which the animals have not been treated 

with antibiotics. 

So the significance of this remains to be determined. Are these 

pathogenic organisms? Everyone in this room is infected subclinically with a virus, bacteria, fungus, or all of the above, and under 

some circumstances those organisms can cause disease. And it varies from individual to individual. 

So it remains to be determined, the significance of these persisting organisms, and they by no means indicate chronic Lyme disease or an example of post-Lyme disease syndrome. But, certainly, 

something unique is going on with Borrelia burgdorferi, and it 

needs further study. 

And that is pretty much my testimony. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Doctor. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Barthold follows:]

10


75161a-1.eps
11


75161a-2.eps
12


75161a-3.eps
13


75161a-4.eps
14


75161a-5.eps
15


75161a-6.eps
16


75161a-7.eps
17


75161a-8.eps
18


75161a-9.eps
19


75161a-10.eps
20


75161a-11.eps
21


75161a-12.eps
22


75161a-13.eps
23


75161a-14.eps
24

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Without objection, all of your full and 

very extensive testimonies will be made a part of the record. 

Dr. Stricker? 

STATEMENT OF RAPHAEL STRICKER, M.D., VICE PRESIDENT, 

INTERNATIONAL LYME AND ASSOCIATED DISEASES SOCIETY 

Dr. STRICKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, honored guests. 

First, let me take this opportunity to thank the committee for inviting me to speak about the growing international health threat 

of Lyme disease. 

I am a practicing physician in San Francisco with a specialty in 

internal medicine. I am also vice president of the International 

Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, or ILADS, an international 

organization of medical providers with expertise in treating patients with Lyme disease and associated tick-borne illnesses. I currently have over 2,000 Lyme disease patients in my practice, and 

I have watched the number of patients with this disease grow exponentially over the past 15 years. 

Patients come to me from all over the United States and around 

the world: From Connecticut to California, from Canada to Costa 

Rica, from Great Britain to Brunei, and from Germany to Japan, 

and, yes, even from New Jersey. Many of these patients have been 

ill for years, and, sadly, they have been unable to find a medical 

provider who can diagnose and treat them for Lyme disease. 

My practice reflects the increasing rate of Lyme disease in the 

United States and around the world. This increase should not be 

a surprise to anyone; after all, Lyme disease is the most common 

tick-borne disease in the world today. It is caused by a spiralshaped bacteria that is transmitted by the bite of a tick, as you 

have heard. Patients with Lyme disease develop a combination of 

muscle and joint symptoms, neurologic problems, and heart abnormalities that may be severe and debilitating. 

Yet, in spite of the fact that the disease is so common, medical 

providers are often ignorant about how to diagnose and treat Lyme 

disease. There are a number of reasons for this ignorance. First, 

the telltale bullseye rash that is a classic sign of Lyme disease may 

be absent in more than half of Lyme disease patients. Absence of 

the classic Lyme rash makes the diagnosis of the disease much 

more difficult. Second, patients are often unaware of a tick bite. In 

many parts of the world, the black-legged tick that transmits Lyme 

disease may be no larger than a poppy seed and easily missed. 

Third, Lyme disease may have a wide range of symptoms, and 

physicians are often unaware of the highly variable manifestations 

of the disease. Fourth, testing for Lyme disease remains problematic. For historical reasons, most laboratories around the world use 

tests that are unstandardized and insensitive, and these tests give 

negative results in about half the cases of Lyme disease. Fifth, 

treatment of Lyme disease has evolved in a haphazard fashion. The 

‘‘standard of care’’ for treating Lyme disease put forth by specialty 

medical organizations, such as the Infectious Diseases Society of 

America, or IDSA, only addresses acute infection immediately following a tick bite. The IDSA standard ignores the more common 

25

and severe chronic form of Lyme disease that many of my patients 

suffer from. 

For all of these reasons, Lyme disease has become an international medical disaster. We have seen thousands of patients 

around the world who have suffered the dire consequences of 

undiagnosed and untreated Lyme disease. Their stories fill up 

pages and pixels in medical journals, newspaper articles, documentary films, YouTube videos, and online magazines. Yet our specialty medical organizations, such as IDSA, sit by and do nothing. 

In California, we are grateful to the State legislature and the Department of Health Services for establishing the Lyme Disease Advisory Committee with the goal of educating medical providers and 

the public about Lyme disease. We have established mandatory 

laboratory reporting of positive Lyme disease tests directly to the 

Department of Health Services, just like the system for reporting 

syphilis, tuberculosis, HIV disease, and other public health threats. 

We also have a physician protection law that allows healthcare providers to care for Lyme disease patients in the most medically appropriate manner. 

These essential steps should serve as a model for a national tickborne disease program with a national Lyme disease advisory committee representing all stakeholders, a national and even international reporting system for positive tick-borne disease testing, 

and national legislation to protect healthcare providers who treat 

patients with the chronic form of Lyme disease. 

Beyond these short-term goals, we need the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, the CDC, and the National Institutes of 

Health, the NIH, to abandon their failed Lyme disease programs. 

We need the CDC and the NIH to promote targeted research to develop better diagnostic tests for tick-borne diseases, just as they did 

for AIDS. We need the CDC and the NIH to develop more effective 

treatments for patients who suffer from the chronic form of Lyme 

disease. 

We cannot do this if specialty medical societies continue to turn 

their backs on these patients because those societies ignore the evidence that chronic Lyme disease exists. We need to get these organizations to look at the evidence, to discard dogmatic opinions that 

are out of date, and to start helping sick patients instead of contributing to the pain and suffering of those patients. 

Above all, we need to listen to the voices of patients with Lyme 

disease. You will hear some of those voices today. The voices come 

from people in every walk of life, in every corner of our society, and 

in every corner of the world. Those voices need to be heard. 

Almost 2 decades ago, a courageous physician named Joseph 

Burrascano testified at a Health Committee hearing of the United 

States Senate. The committee had just been reassured by prominent members of the medical establishment that Lyme disease was 

a trivial illness that was ‘‘hard to catch and easy to cure.’’ Dr. 

Burrascano spoke these words:

‘‘The very existence of hundreds of Lyme support groups in the 

country and the tens of thousands of dissatisfied, mistreated, 

and ill patients whom these groups represent underscores the 

many problems that exist in the real world of Lyme disease.’’

26

Almost 2 decades later, those problems still exist in the real world 

of Lyme disease. We can and we must address those problems for 

the benefit of everyone in our international community. 

Thank you very much for your attention. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you so very much, Dr. 

Stricker. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Stricker follows:]


75161b-1.eps
27


75161b-2.eps
28


75161b-3.eps
29


75161b-4.eps
30


75161b-5.eps
31


75161b-6.eps
32


75161b-7.eps
33


75161b-8.eps
34


75161b-9.eps
35


75161b-10.eps
36


75161b-11.eps
37


75161b-12.eps
38


75161b-13.eps
39


75161b-14.eps
40


75161b-15.eps
41


75161b-16.eps
42


75161b-17.eps
43


75161b-18.eps
44


75161b-19.eps
45


75161b-20.eps
46

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Dr. Eshoo? 

STATEMENT OF MARK ESHOO, PH.D., DIRECTOR, NEW 

TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT, ABBOTT 

Mr. ESHOO. Hello. Thank you for the invitation to address the 

committee. I represent IBIS Biosciences; we are a part of Abbott. 

And, obviously, our interest has been in developing better 

diagnostics for Lyme disease. 

You know, as we heard earlier, Lyme disease is caused by a bacteria called Borrelia burgdorferi and is the most commonly reported 

vector-borne infectious disease in North America and is also found 

around Europe and Asia. The number of cases has been steadily increasing, and it is estimated that this disease is severely underreported. 

Other tick-borne diseases are also very important, such as the 

protozoan parasite Babesia, which is found worldwide. And in 

many parts of the world, such as Africa, Babesiosis, the disease 

caused by Babesia, is frequently mistaken for malaria. In regions 

with Lyme disease, there are also a large number of other tickborne pathogens that are typically present, leading to a high risk 

of co-infection with Lyme disease. 

Now, in nature, Lyme disease is spread by ticks to mice, which 

act as the reservoir of the disease. The infected mice then infect 

more ticks, and then the ticks then infect more mice. Though these 

mice are infected, they don’t die but, rather, become chronically or 

long-term infected. This is because if the mouse dies, so will the 

bacteria that cause Lyme disease. 

To survive in the mice, these bacteria have evolved several clever 

tricks to evade the mouse’s immune system. One of the ways they 

do this is by infecting the parts of the mouse’s body where it is 

hard for the immune system to attack the infection—the skin, the 

joints, the nervous system. Now, when people become infected by 

a tick bite, the Lyme bacteria do the same things as they do in the 

mouse. The infections can be long-lasting or chronic. They can 

spread through the skin, which we see as a bullseye rash. They can 

invade the nervous system and cause neurological Lyme disease or 

infect the joints, causing Lyme arthritis. 

The best time to treat Lyme disease is at the first sign of symptoms. The challenge is that the symptoms of early Lyme disease 

are varied and frequently mistaken for other illnesses. The most 

typical symptom of early Lyme disease includes the bullseye rash; 

however, this bullseye rash is present in a little over half of Lyme 

infections. The other symptoms of early Lyme disease are typically 

flu-like—fatigue, fever, and headache. Thus, early Lyme disease 

can be very difficult to clinically diagnosis by physicians who are 

not Lyme disease specialists. 

The current diagnostic for Lyme disease is called the two-tiered 

test, and it does not directly detect Lyme bacteria but, rather, looks 

to see if the patient’s immune system has developed antibodies 

against the bacteria. 

There are three main problems with the current two-tiered test. 

The first is that it can take a Lyme patient 3 weeks or more after 

its infection with Lyme disease bacteria for the immune system to 

47

develop enough to test positive. Thus, treatment could be delayed 

during the critical early period of the infection. 

The interpretation of the two-tiered test results can be subjective, with essentially the same test from the same patient being 

performed by two separate labs reporting opposite results. 

Thirdly, once a person has had Lyme disease, they will continue 

to test positive even after treatment due to the fact that the immune system remains active against the Lyme bacteria. Because of 

this fact, there is controversy over how much treatment is needed 

to cure Lyme disease, with some physicians recommending antibiotic treatment for a couple of weeks, with other physicians recommending treatment with antibiotics for months to years. 

At Abbott Labs’ IBIS division, we have applied our technology to 

detect a wide range of tick-borne pathogens based upon the detection of the pathogen’s DNA, or directly looking for the pathogen’s 

DNA. The challenge of Lyme disease tests is that there is very little Borrelia bacteria and its DNA circulating in the bloodstream of 

patients with early Lyme disease, making a sensitive direct assay 

very difficult. 

To address this challenge, we have worked to improve the sensitivity of our Lyme assay by several means. First, we employ an 

assay that consists of eight independent tests for the Lyme diseasecausing bacteria. This way, we have eight chances of finding the 

bacteria’s DNA in the blood. Secondly, we use a very large volume 

of blood in the test, thereby increasing the chances of finding the 

bacteria in a given specimen. 

And, thirdly, we employ a technique to increase the bacteria’s 

DNA in the specimen. Initial results of this approach have been 

very, very encouraging. In a recent study of 21 patients with confirmed early Lyme disease, we detected Lyme disease in 62 percent 

of those patients’ blood specimens at their first doctor’s visit. We 

believe this work demonstrates it is possible to develop sensitive 

and direct tests for Lyme disease. However, there is a great deal 

of work needed to make this test suitable for use in clinical 

diagnostics. 

Another area of interest for us and research has been looking at 

variations in the bacteria. Many pathogenic bacteria come in various strains, and these strains may determine the type and severity 

of disease that they cause. For example, E. coli comes in many 

strains, many of which are harmless but others that can cause serious illness. Worldwide, we have identified over 100 different 

strains of Lyme disease-causing bacteria in ticks. Knowing the 

roles of these strain differences may be important to knowing the 

potential types of Lyme disease to look for and how best to treat 

the infections. 

There are three areas that we think are needed to fill the gaps. 

We believe we need more government research and funding in 

three key areas. 

First, we believe that we need research and development to make 

a sensitive test that can directly detect the Lyme disease-causing 

bacteria. Such a test would enable detection of Lyme disease earlier in the infection before the bacteria are able to spread throughout the body. Such a test would then also enable the physician to 

monitor the responses to treatment. 

48

We also need a better understanding of the roles and causes of 

post-treatment Lyme disease. Why don’t the symptoms resolve following treatment for a large and significant number of Lyme disease patients? And, again, we believe a sensitive direct diagnostic 

may be instrumental into understanding the causes of these symptoms. 

Lastly, many pathogenic bacteria come in these various strains 

and types, and we need increased research into the roles of the 

Borrelia strain differences in Lyme disease in humans. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you so very much, Dr. Eshoo. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eshoo follows:]

49


75161c-1.eps
50


75161c-2.eps
51


75161c-3.eps
52


75161c-4.eps
53


75161c-5.eps
54

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Pat Smith, if you would proceed now. 

STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICIA SMITH, PRESIDENT, LYME 

DISEASE ASSOCIATION 

Ms. SMITH. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on a problem 

I have seen blossom from a regional into an international issue. 

Twenty-seven years ago, I saw the devastation in my school district caused by an unknown disease affecting staff and students. To 

educate myself and my fellow school board members, I had to contact a nearby naval base, although many of my inquiries were answered with, ‘‘That’s classified.’’

The past 20 years, I have traveled the country, 15 as president 

of the all-volunteer national nonprofit Lyme Disease Association, 

listening to patients, scientists, doctors, and government officials. 

Through the perspective of Lyme, I have found that some individuals charged with public welfare have lost their focus. Instead of 

solving the problems of humanity, some have abrogated their responsibilities, affecting people worldwide. 

Over time, I have heard Lyme called a housewives disease; a 

yuppie disease; hard to catch, easy to cure; heard patients referred 

to as hysterical, faking, crazy, paranoid, even antibiotic-seeking; 

and heard Lyme advocates portrayed as crazed know-nothings responsible for mass hysteria over Lyme. Many U.S. organizations 

and others in the world have been victimized in peer-reviewed literature by noted researchers who don’t agree that Lyme doctors 

should be permitted to use clinical judgment in treating Lyme, attacking those who are working tirelessly to raise research and education funds for Lyme disease—that is, the advocates and the patients. Many patients confide to me they would rather have cancer. 

CDC and NIH have awarded grants to many of the same people, 

some for studies that rely on the strict CDC surveillance criteria 

for inclusion, including the use of the faulty nonsensitive tests. 

Thousands of patients have questioned this practice, and they ask 

for studies which can provide solutions to their dilemmas as chronic Lyme patients: ‘‘My doctor won’t treat me when I am sick’’; ‘‘No 

one believes my children and I are sick.’’ A common refrain is, 

‘‘Why isn’t the government doing anything about Lyme?’’

NIH funded several treatment studies, and the broad-brushed 

conclusions put a nail in the coffin of Lyme patients. One could 

possibly conclude from the studies that the specific treatments used 

by the study participants over the length of the study were not effective for the restrictive populations chosen for research purposes. 

However, instead, the conclusions became: No long-term treatment 

is effective for anyone with Lyme. Many doctors in mainstream 

medicine who had treated Lyme to date now turned a blind eye 

and a deaf ear to patients with Lyme. 

The CDC Lyme surveillance system is in shambles. CDC criteria 

have become stricter, reducing the patient pool for reported cases. 

Lyme surveillance is very labor-intensive, including calling doctors 

to verify case reports. And human resources have been cut, forcing 

States to institute cost-savings measures involving changing case 

reporting methods, affecting national and regional numbers. 

Officials continue to declare there is no Lyme in the South or the 

Midwest. And reasons given for that stance range from: ‘‘There are 

55

no deer ticks in the South; if there are deer ticks there, they are 

not infected with Lyme because there are no reservoir hosts in the 

South,’’ and those are small mammals that carry Lyme bacteria 

and transmit it to the ticks who infect people. ‘‘Deer ticks in the 

South feed on lizards, which do not transmit Lyme bacteria to 

ticks.’’ ‘‘Deer ticks in the South behave differently.’’ And, really, my 

favorite, ‘‘And deer ticks in the South do not bite people.’’

Scientific studies do not support those conclusions, yet many physicians still refuse to diagnose and treat Lyme in the South, forcing 

those patients to seek medical treatment in endemic areas of the 

country, adding to the already-overburdened medical practices 

there. 

Compounding the problem, the very strict Lyme definitions, 

meant for surveillance only, are abused by mainstream medicine, 

insurance companies, pharmacists who won’t even fill prescriptions 

for Lyme patients, and even public officials who are charging moms 

with Munchausen’s-by-proxy. And believe it or not, in this day and 

age, they are taking away their children. And what is their crime? 

Having a licensed doctor prescribe an antibiotic for their children’s 

Lyme. 

On its Web site, CDC disclaims any responsibility, stating its criteria are for surveillance only. But its actions belie that position. 

CDC openly endorses IDSA guidelines, which are featured on its 

Web site—guidelines written by researchers, not clinicians who 

care about patient outcomes. For example, the IDSA guidelines recommend against any long-term treatment with antibiotics, they 

recommend against any alternative treatments, and they recommend against any supplements for Lyme patients. And patients 

have no treatment options open to them under these guidelines, 

even if they can find a doctor who is willing to treat under the 

threat of license removal for exercising clinical judgment in treating Lyme. 

The CDC criteria form the basis of the IDSA guidelines. Intertwined, inseparable, like strands of a rope, they form a noose 

around the neck of Lyme patients, sometimes leaving them to die 

a very slow, painful death without medical treatment. 

Even in death there is no rest for the Lyme victims and their 

families. A published study examined 114 death certificates listing 

Lyme as a cause, and the researchers concluded—and I have to 

quote this—‘‘Most terminal events listed on death certificates for 

which Lyme was the underlying cause of death were inconsistent 

with the well-characterized complications of Lyme disease,’’ leaving 

only one death record standing as Lyme disease—a conclusion, by 

the way, they reached without even conducting medical chart reviews. 

Researchers have concluded Lyme causes more pain and suffering than osteoarthritis, myocardial infarction, and Type 2 diabetes. But they still have not let patients have any recourse, denying 

any clinical judgments in patients who otherwise have no treatment options. 

Since Lyme often affects more than one family member and those 

at the highest risk are our children ages 5 to 9, mothers often have 

to forgo their own treatment to save their children. And these same 

moms are then accused of Munchausen’s-by-proxy, a controversial 

56

diagnosis which blames parents for making their own children sick. 

I have advocated for patients and children whose schools accuse 

them of faking illness, despite reputable research showing a drop 

in IQ of 22 points in children with Lyme rectified by antibiotic 

treatment. I have mourned with those families whose children committed suicide after leaving notes which said no one believed them 

to be sick and they could not bear the pain of the disease and the 

rejection. 

And in conclusion, I want to say that this hearing has provided 

a public forum for Lyme issues to be discussed before an impartial 

audience with the ability to initiate and implement changes. Whatever our differing viewpoints today, we all came to testify to be 

part of that solution. I came today as a grandmother of four, trying 

to protect my granddaughters and others against the agonies of 

Lyme experienced by two of my very own daughters. 

Yet, as I look around the room, I notice the absence of the key 

players in Lyme—CDC, NIH, IDSA—who were invited to be part 

of the solution. Instead, they chose consciously to remain part of 

the problem—at the least, abrogating their responsibilities; at the 

worst, violating a basic tenet of medicine: First, do no harm. They 

need to be brought to this table with patients, advocates, and treating physicians, who have before this time been locked out of the 

process, so that patients who suffer from Lyme can find treatment 

and the millions of potential victims worldwide can be spared the 

medical and political debacle we call Lyme disease. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ms. Smith, thank you so very much 

for your advocacy as well as your testimony here today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Smith follows:]

57


75161d-1.eps
58


75161d-2.eps
59


75161d-3.eps
60


75161d-4.eps
61


75161d-5.eps
62


75161d-6.eps
63


75161d-7.eps
64


75161d-8.eps
65


75161d-9.eps
66


75161d-10.eps
67


75161d-11.eps
68


75161d-12.eps
69


75161d-13.eps
70


75161d-14.eps
71


75161d-15.eps
72


75161d-16.eps
73


75161d-17.eps
74


75161d-18.eps
75


75161d-19.eps
76

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would like to now invite Evan 

White to testify from New York City. His wife just gave birth last 

week, so we congratulate him on a blessed event. So, Mr. White, 

if you could begin now by way of Skype. 

STATEMENT OF MR. EVAN WHITE, LYME DISEASE PATIENT 

[The following testimony was delivered via Skype.] 

Mr. WHITE. Thanks again for having me by video. It is appreciated. I have been an advocate for Lyme disease for over the 

course of 20 years, and my advocacy for Lyme disease is really 

borne out of a very tragic and unfortunate case of chronic Lyme 

disease that I was subjected to because of a doctor’s insistence on 

providing me with limited antibiotic treatment. At the other end of 

the spectrum, I am well, and I am able to be here with you today 

because of conscientious doctors that have provided me with careful, long-term treatment. 

Today I am a father, husband, practicing attorney, business 

owner, employer, and advocate for the rights of Lyme disease patients. Now, I mention that to illustrate a point, not to be boastful. 

My point is that were it not for this long-term treatment by a careful and conscientious Lyme physician, none of this would be possible. And I raise that to illustrate the fact that so many of our 

Lyme constituents do not have the benefits that I had. Certainly 

by comparison, if they did, my belief is that they, too, would be able 

to live fulfilling, recovered lives and be contributing members of society. 

So my story has a happy ending. That being said, I am here to 

fight for the same for all of my fellow Lyme constituents. Obviously 

the nature of roadblocks and obstacles in achieving that for everyone are these outdated and unduly limited treatment guidelines 

that, you know, turn a blind eye to what we as patients and people 

in the Lyme community know as effective treatment. 

My personal story is really a real-life case study to illustrate 

these points, that short-term antibiotic treatment can be absolutely 

devastating, and then long-term treatment, conversely, can reverse 

these effects sometimes. In fact, that is what we are fighting for. 

Now, my story begins over 21 years ago in the fall of 1991 as an 

11-year-old going on 12, going into middle school, when I began to 

all of a sudden miss several days of school due to flulike symptoms. 

Unlike with the other Lyme patients, my physician was able to diagnose me properly with Lyme disease. Unfortunately, we—like so 

many physicians today, that was met with the improper and catastrophic response of insufficient treatment and approximately a 

week, 2 weeks of antibiotic treatment. 

Now, the response to my not recovering after 2 weeks was one 

that is very common and unfortunate in the Lyme community, and 

that was to recommend a treatment of physical therapy and psychological therapy. As I was taken off medication and persisted 

with that course of treatment, I noticed daily that my condition 

was deteriorating. I had placed my faith in these physicians and, 

as a 12-year-old, knew nothing else other than to trust my doctor. 

Lo and behold, after 6 months the deterioration was so severe 

that I was really having great difficulty performing any activities. 

I certainly hadn’t been to school; I hadn’t even had any home 

77

schooling. Even simple tasks like getting out of bed became virtually impossible. 

When we turned back to the blood tests, my doctors were surprised Lyme disease was still very present along with other co-infections in my blood. What we had learned there is an example of 

the devastating impact of untreated Lyme disease, and one that is 

met with what represents the current suggested treatment. 

This 6-month layoff from Lyme treatment sent me in tailspin. It 

was a virtual nightmare for myself and my family as my condition 

vastly deteriorated, and I was really transformed over the course 

of the year from an active, healthy, athletic child to one that essentially couldn’t even care for myself. I was about 60 pounds. This 

treatment had caused me to experience great muscle atrophy, as 

well as neurological defects, so just a drastic, striking contrast in 

my life that was absolutely devastating. For lack of a better term, 

by the time I was age 13, I was essentially a vegetable. 

Doctors were really baffled and confused by my condition, by the 

severity of it. Their only solution at that time was to place me full 

time in children’s rehabilitational care. What had ensued, fortunately, for me afterward was the type of brain scan that revealed 

that this unfortunate medical treatment had caused Lyme disease 

to penetrate the blood brain barrier, causing hypoperfusion within 

my brain, and this offered some explanation, some insight into why 

I was unable to essentially take care of myself, essentially perform 

even the most basic functions like reading, talking, communicating, 

things like that. That being said, I was still surrounded by doctors 

who were totally confused and confounded and had absolutely no 

idea what condition I was suffering from or why. 

Shortly, after spending about 2 years bouncing from hospital to 

hospital, 6 months in a children’s institution, I was sent home to 

receive outpatient treatment. And right around that time my parents, who were incredibly dedicated to assisting me and helping me 

recover, were able to arrange for an appointment with a very 

prominent Lyme disease physician. This person essentially got it. 

When I met with him, I finally felt understood. I mean, this person 

had their own personal experience with the disease to bring to the 

table, not to mention a day-in, day-out practice and a repetition 

and seeing and treating patients with the disease. 

Now, I had a long road ahead of me to recovery, but what had 

transpired there was really a turning point for me and for my life 

entirely. This physician was able to treat me, put me on a longterm treatment program, long-term antibiotics, coupled with therapy and other essential supplements that he recognized as necessary. And it was a 2-year crawl, but if it even were a 10-year 

crawl to get me out of that unfortunate place that I was in, that 

would be just fine with me. 

Through hard work and attentive treatment from this doctor, I 

was able to stop using a wheelchair, get out of bed, be able to function, take care of myself. My neurological symptoms began to dissipate. I began to be able to read, and communicate and converse. 

This was a very slow and long process, but ultimately, due to this 

physician’s belief in me and treatment, he set me out on a trajectory that has allowed me to become the person that I am today. 

78

And I am happy to be fully recovered from Lyme disease, and 

certainly hoping through this testimony that patients that are afflicted by Lyme disease are not deprived of what I had the opportunity to do, and that is certainly my mission as someone who has 

recovered from symptoms of chronic Lyme disease. 

And in closing, what I am hoping that this subcommittee throws 

out there or people take away from my testimony is that my belief 

that the net effect of the current guidelines that are out there restricting treatment of Lyme disease patients ultimately deprived so 

many, if not all of them, who suffer as I have from the opportunity 

to have the healthcare option to seek long-term treatment that is 

effective, that is proven, and that has worked in allowing me and 

others who were fortunate enough to achieve normal, fulfilling, 

pain-free lives. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. White, thank you so very much 

for your eloquent statement and for showing a way, I think, for 

many other Lyme patients that there is hope if the right treatments are procured. So thank you so much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. White follows:]

79


75161e-1.eps
80


75161e-2.eps
81


75161e-3.eps
82


75161e-4.eps
83

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. I would like to now welcome Stella 

Huyshe-Shires, who is the chair of the Lyme Disease Action for the 

United Kingdom. 

STATEMENT OF MS. STELLA HUYSHE-SHIRES, CHAIR, LYME 

DISEASE ACTION 

[The following testimony was delivered via telephone.] 

Ms. HUYSHE-SHIRES. Lyme Disease Action is a nonprofit organization striving to improve the understanding of Lyme disease in 

the UK on behalf of doctors, patients, careers, employers and 

healthcare providers. 

In particular we have to improve the position of the doctors. If 

doctors are able to recognize, diagnose and treat Lyme disease, and 

have the means to do this, all other stakeholders will benefit. 

The whole of Europe is affected by the polarization of views concerning Lyme disease that has arisen from the IDSA/ILADS controversy and it became apparent to Lyme Disease Action that UK 

doctors would not take us seriously without some official accreditation. We are therefore now accredited to our Department of Health 

Information Standard. This means that our information management processes have been verified to make correct, unbiased use of 

sources of evidence. There is disagreement on the incidence of European Lyme disease and the possible scale of the problem. 

Papers and Web sites written by health professionals normally 

say that Lyme is overdiagnosed, but those written by members of 

the public say that Lyme disease is underdiagnosed. What is the 

evidence? 

In the UK we don’t know the incidence, as only positive blood 

tests are recorded; however, an audit at a highly aware GP practice 

has found an incidence 20 times that of the surrounding region. 

Extrapolating from this, it seems perfectly possible that the recorded figure for the UK of a mere 1,300 cases may actually be 

26,000. 

Is there evidence that Lyme disease is overdiagnosed? Well, a recent paper analyzed notes of all patients referred to a major infectious diseases clinic with possible Lyme disease. It reports that 

only 23 percent of the patients were diagnosed by the clinic as actually having Lyme disease, and 33 percent were diagnosed with 

chronic fatigue syndrome instead. The authors state these figures 

mirror similar studies in North America and voice their concerns 

that CFS patients are susceptible to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. 

So yes, Lyme disease may be misdiagnosed in some cases, but 

the number of patients in the whole 5-year period was 42. Say 12 

similar clinics across the UK, this might mean about 100 people a 

year in the UK being misdiagnosed with Lyme disease. Contrast 

that with the possible 20,000 real Lyme disease cases misdiagnosed 

with something else. 

Lyme disease isn’t alone. A similar survey of patients referred to 

a specialist chronic fatigue syndrome clinic found that 40 percent 

of those patients have been misdiagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome. The challenge there is for everyone to stop beating their 

own particular drum and ask why Lyme disease is difficult to diagnose and what can be done about it. 

84

Diseases that are rare and difficult take doctors’ time and effort. 

They need unequivocal tests and clear guidelines. Unfortunately, 

neither of those exist in the UK for Lyme disease. In this small 

country with a relatively low incidence, most doctors haven’t seen 

enough cases to gain experience, so there is a heavy reliance on 

tests, and doctors are likely to telephone the laboratory for clinical 

advice. 

The former head of the Health Protection Agency laboratory 

served as consultant to the IDSA panel in the development of 2006 

guidelines, so it is understandable that the views of IDSA have 

prevailed in the UK. 

The Health Protection Agency has also told doctors that Internet 

sources of information are unreliable, that the dangers to patients 

from misdiagnosis are considerable, and that tests from some laboratories are unreliable. All of this has an element of truth, but 

drawing attention to only this side of the coin is a misrepresentation of the state of affairs. 

A small number of UK microbiologists have drawn up, under the 

British Infection Association, a position paper on Lyme disease. Despite its biased view of the literature, it is used by professionals to 

support the view that Lyme disease can be definitively diagnosed 

by serology and does not persist after recommended treatment. Unfortunately, European research shows otherwise, but doctors don’t 

have time for critical reading, and understandably they trust that 

their peers would have done a good job of drawing up guidance. 

Europe faces the challenge of more than one species of Borrelia 

burgdorferi, that has already been said, and this adds a complexity 

to serology tests. In Scotland the Lyme reference laboratory uses 

its own in-house Western blot, recording far more bands than are 

used in commercial test kits. No laboratory undertakes extra work 

like this without good reason. 

When it comes to treatment, the UK follows IDSA despite European guidelines which point out that there have been no good-quality European trials on agent, dose or treatment length, but most 

treatment recommendations are, in fact, based on opinion, not evidence. It does seem to us that there are uncertainties, but we need 

to get other skeptical stakeholders to examine this possibility, very 

difficult in the current climate of suspicion and disbelief in patient 

views. 

We have now started a process mediated by the James Lind Alliance which involves documenting doctors’ and patients’ uncertainties. To engage doctors in this has been taxing and only achievable 

because the British Infection Association, following our criticism of 

their paper, realized that that input was important. The collective 

uncertainties are now being examined against the published literature and systematic reviews, and this will result in a list of true 

uncertainties. 

The biggest challenge we face globally is the recognition and 

agreement on the uncertainties. There are other positive signs over 

here. The Health Protection Agency, following the reorganization 

and move of the Lyme reference laboratory, has now also engaged 

with us. However, across Europe lies this polarization of opinions 

along the ILADS/IDSA fault line, as recently illustrated by several 

journal articles. 

85

It can be hard not to see the collective publications that deny patient rationality as an orchestrated attempt to discredit an alternative view. It may, however, simply be a reluctance to climb out 

of an entrenched position. 

Earlier this year we attended the European Congress of Clinical 

Microbiology and Infectious Diseases in London. Discussions with 

a lot of international delegates were revealing. Northern European 

doctors face similar problems to the UK, with doctors relying heavily on test results. In Central Europe, where incidence of Lyme disease is far higher, doctors have more experience, and they were 

telling us Lyme is a big problem, we don’t have good enough tests, 

and we don’t know how to treat. 

To us here there seem to be two principle aspects to the Lyme 

disease problem: Politics and the uncertainties of the science. The 

politics drives patients to seek care away from the UK National 

Health Service, which is failing them. And it is politics which is 

preventing recognition of the uncertainties. Politics, prestige, and 

defense of positions should not obstruct patient care nor hamper 

the search for understanding. 

Thank you for inviting Lyme Disease Action to testify. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ms. Huyshe-Shires, thank you very 

much for your testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Huyshe-Shires follows:]

86


75161f-1.eps
87


75161f-2.eps
88


75161f-3.eps
89


75161f-4.eps
90

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. And I thought I would start with 

you, if I could, on some questions and ask, perhaps, others to jump 

in. 

Mr. White in his testimony talked about the short-term antibiotic 

treatment being devastating to him. And in a London Telegraph article on May 16, 2011, in which you spoke to the reporter about 

how you waited 3 years for confirmation that you had Lyme disease, and then you got a low-dose antibiotic for 2 weeks, standard 

treatment for Lyme, and it made absolutely no difference; then you 

went in the hospital for 2 weeks of intravenous antibiotics, you 

thought you would get better, but you got worse. If you just could 

speak to, you know, just what that was like to have the prescribed 

remedy seemingly inefficient and unavailing in your case. 

You also point out that doctors in Britain follow the advice of the 

Health Protection Agency, which adheres to the guidelines set by 

the Infectious Diseases Society of America, and, of course, those 

guidelines say that patients should not take antibiotics for longer 

than 28 days. But you then made the comment that scientists have 

found that Lyme can survive a short course of antibiotics, something that has been debated in this subcommittee by our other witnesses, citing a recent paper from the London School of Hygiene 

and Tropical Medicine. 

You might speak to that paper and some other data that you 

have come across. It would seem that the information being conveyed to at least the UK and perhaps the rest of the world by the 

Infectious Diseases Society of America is not just now affecting 

Americans, but people in other lands as well. 

Ms. HUYSHE-SHIRES. Yes. As a patient who believes in the health 

service, to have a treatment that doesn’t work is devastating. The 

worst thing is probably when people do not believe you; when patients with subjective symptoms are told, it is in your head, and 

it can be very hard. The IDSA recognizes that if you still have visible arthritis, then you may get some more treatment, but if you 

have invisible pain, then you cannot have further treatment. 

The Health Protection Agency does follow IDSA guidelines. Individual doctors often, or do sometimes, take an individual clinical 

decision. The paper that you mentioned looking at case studies for 

the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine followed—

looked at the case studies of patients, I think, over a 4- or 5-year 

period, and they documented the fact that there were some patients who did not recover after their initial course of antibiotics, 

so they were given a second course of antibiotics, and, when that 

didn’t work, they were given a third course of antibiotics. And between each course the patients were believed, but they also 

checked on the serology and found a rising antibody titer in the 

blood test. 

Now, quite often people—doctors will not check the antibody 

level, will not check anything, and will just say, you have had adequate treatment, where ‘‘adequate’’ means conforms to some guidelines; ‘‘adequate’’ does not mean adequate to treat the disease. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

Doctor Barthold, if I could ask you, in your testimony you ask, 

‘‘Does it survive following treatment, and if so, do surviving spirochetes cause chronic Lyme disease or post-Lyme disease synVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:45 Oct 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\071712\75161 HFA PsN: SHIRL
91

drome?’’ You have also testified that ‘‘Research proposals submitted 

to NIH that feature persistence following treatment are likely to 

receive prejudicial peer reviews in the contentious environment of 

Lyme disease.’’

Could you elaborate on that? Are good, laudable proposals being 

rejected simply because they don’t comport with, you know, an entrenched belief at the NIH? 

Dr. BARTHOLD. Well, it is certainly not NIH that is at fault, it 

is peer review, and when peers are divided as everybody else in the 

Lyme community, then there is bound to be prejudice percolating 

into the review. 

I have direct experience with such prejudicial statements in 

grant applications that I have submitted. There may be fault with 

the science, and that is fine, we can respond to that, but when 

there is prejudice in the reviewer’s mind in terms of scoring the 

significance or the impact of this research, it is not going get over 

the barrier. 

And right now NIH is really struggling to fund investigators. 

They are spreading the butter very thin, they are finding ways to 

cut here and there, pay lines are extremely high and very difficult 

hurdles to overcome. Young people are not entering science; old 

people like me are leaving. It is a difficult environment. It is going 

to take years to come out of. So in that environment it is a combination of things that anything controversial, be it Lyme disease 

or otherwise, is going to have difficulty getting funded. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

Dr. Barthold, you also have made a recommendation that NIH 

publish a call, a specific call, for applications that request research 

on the biological significance of persisting spirochetes following antibiotic treatment. In making that call, I am sure this isn’t the first 

time—or maybe it is—has there been any openness to that suggestion? 

Dr. BARTHOLD. The only suggestion is mine in this testimony. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Okay. 

Dr. BARTHOLD. Our system works. We scientists are always looking for money, and we follow the money. And when NIH puts out 

a request for applications with a devoted pot of money to support 

that kind of work, you will get response from the scientific community. I think we saw a good example of that with biodefense funding several years ago where people left their traditional fields and 

went over into biodefense research. 

It is just a matter of opportunity. If NIH says, this is an important subject area that needs to be explored, then hopefully young 

people will gravitate to those opportunities. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask you, Dr. Stricker, on page 

2 of your testimony you point out that the investigation that was 

initiated by the attorney general of Connecticut, now Senator, 

Blumenthal found conflicts of interest and suppression of data in 

the guidelines development process. And then you point out that 

despite extensive evidence, IDSA review panel voted unanimously 

to uphold the flawed guidelines. 

Could you elaborate on that? Because, you know, I was one of 

those who for years asked that there be an investigation to potential conflicts of interest. Finally the attorney general took it up, I 

92

am sure because of local people and others who brought it to his 

attention. 

But, you know, if there is not confidence in the process and the 

transparency, it does erode a belief that this a completely on-theup process, and the outcomes then are suspect if it has not been. 

But suppression of data, that is a very serious conflict of interest. 

We knew what they were with the insurance companies. Would you 

elaborate on that if you would?

Dr. STRICKER. Well, the attorney general’s investigation uncovered significant instances of suppression of data where only the 

IDSA viewpoint was accepted. Any conflicting or contrary viewpoint was rejected in terms of formulating the guidelines. And this 

was a systematic problem with these guidelines. The investigation—and the attorney general published his concerns, and that is 

available on the Web site of the attorney general. 

What happened after that was that IDSA put together a hearing 

to review the guidelines, and that hearing was entirely under the 

control of IDSA. It was organized by IDSA. They picked the members of the review committee. They picked the individuals who testified before the committee. They had a medical ethicist who basically excluded treating physicians who treat Lyme disease, which 

biased the proceedings significantly. And for all those reasons the 

committee then came down with a decision that even though these 

guidelines were flawed, they were okay, and they were acceptable. 

And that has just been a travesty. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. In your testimony you say, clinical 

testing for Lyme disease remains abysmal. Are you encouraged at 

all by Dr. Eshoo’s testimony and some of the things he is doing? 

Dr. STRICKER. I am very encouraged. I think we need these kind 

of sophisticated laboratory tests. I think this advances the science 

of Lyme testing. We need the NIH and CDC to be supporting this 

type of advance, and I think—I am very encouraged by his work. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. You went into great detail in your 

written statement about renewed interest in cell wall-deficient bacterial forms and biofilms. And perhaps others on the panel might 

want to speak to those issues. Because you also point out that to 

date no antibiotic treatment exists that targets biofilm formation. 

And, Dr. Barthold, in your statement you did talk about the 

issue of mopping up. I don’t think that has been mentioned. You 

know, most lay people don’t understand that the antibiotics don’t 

take it all away; that the host, as you put it up, mops up those bacteria or whatever it might be. Could you elaborate on that, and 

you, too, Dr. Stricker?

Dr. BARTHOLD. So, using the biofilm analogy, biofilm is a population of microorganisms, some of which are dormant. This is kind 

of a universal survival mechanism among bacteria and fungi across 

the world. It is not just a biofilm of a human situation. So those 

dormant, nondividing bacteria are universally tolerant to the effects of antibiotics because they are not dividing, they are not 

metabolically active. And so this is a survival strategy that has 

been going on for eons among microbial communities. 

So Borrelia is kind of akin to that in that we know during an 

early infection it is rapidly dividing and disseminating and quite 

93

susceptible to antibiotics, and we see the same things in vitro or 

in a culture tube. 

During persistent infection in the immune phase of the infection, 

there is a tenfold reduction of organisms in the hosts—and we are 

talking about animal model studies that are not human—and those 

organisms are nondividing and dormant. They are not necessarily 

in the formation of biofilms, but the analogy is there. They are not 

dividing, and, as a result, antibiotics can’t touch them, and so they 

grow out and survive. 

But what is unique about Lyme disease organisms is that they 

grow out, but they can’t be cultured. So they are genetically attenuated in some way, but further work is needed there.

Dr. STRICKER. And I would add that there was an article on 

biofilms that was published last week that goes to the molecular 

mechanisms of that process, and Borrelia has the molecular machinery to make biofilms, and so that makes it very significant in 

terms of the survival of the spirochete. 

I would add that was cell wall-deficient forms or cysts are another mechanism by which the bacteria can persist, because it basically becomes dormant and evades the immune system and antibiotics by taking this cell wall-deficient form. That is something 

that we need to do much more research on, and right now it is not 

being done. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. In your testimony, Dr. Stricker, you 

point out that big pharma is watching, and that hopefully at some 

point they get engaged, as they have in the HIV/AIDS pandemic. 

I am wondering, with Dr. Eshoo there, who is working overtime on 

a better way of discerning whether or not Lyme exists in the individual without resorting to the antibiotic antibody reaction in the 

host, how close are you, Dr. Eshoo, to coming up with this new 

test? And if you could, why, in your view, are the big pharmaceutical companies not getting further involved in this whole issue 

since it affects so many people?

Mr. ESHOO. Well, I think there are a couple of reasons here. One 

the reason for the big pharmaceutical companies is even though 

they still see this as a small-market opportunity, to get a test and 

a diagnostic approved through the FDA takes a lot of money, a lot 

of time and a lot of resources. And so that is a big barrier to entry 

right there. 

You also have, as we have heard, you know, a lot of people in 

the community saying, well, the current tests are adequate enough. 

And so that also acts as a barrier. 

I think we are getting closer to getting a diagnostic that we 

could—to push forward, you know, for a clinical setting, but there 

is a lot of work still to be done. We would like to increase the sensitivity even further. We think looking for the DNA or some other 

marker of the bacteria directly will help end a lot of the controversy, and particularly during that early treatment period, early 

in the infection, when the treatment with antibiotics seems to be 

the most successful. And if we could diagnose it—I mean, who 

wants to be infected with a bacteria for 3 weeks or more waiting 

for a test result to turn positive? So——

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask you, whoever would like 

to answer this, how many people at the Infectious Diseases Society 

94

of America are actually controlling the guidelines? You know, I 

have seen the list, you know, what Attorney General Blumenthal 

did with each of those individuals. But are there people outside of 

that panel that have say as to the guidelines, or is that it? And do 

people like Dr. Collins, Francis Collins, a very distinguished individual, NIH Director, I mean, do he and others take it upon themselves to say, hey, ‘‘What is wrong here?’’ Why is this a persistent 

bone of contention, and so many reasonable people, heavily 

credentialed people like yourselves, who come forward and say, 

there is another view, and people are sick and not getting treatment they need?

Dr. STRICKER. The Blumenthal investigation showed that there 

was a small group of about 14 individuals who controlled the IDSA 

program on Lyme disease. And it really is a very small group. The 

rest of the organization, the other 9,000 members, defer to that 

group. And that has been a big problem. And other organizations 

like the NIH and CDC defer to that very small group, and that has 

been a huge problem with Lyme disease. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask Pat Smith, if you could, 

does your organization and do other Lyme disease nonprofits have 

established scientific or medical review boards? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes, we do. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Could you explain a little bit? 

Ms. SMITH. Okay. Basically our organization and most of the 

major organizations have either a separate scientific review board, 

or they might have—we have what is called a scientific and professional review board. And what our organizations for the most part 

that I am familiar with do is we don’t pay those people. They don’t 

pay us. Nothing is done like that. But if we have issues that we 

need to address, and it is in their area of expertise, or we are considering funding research—we fund a significant amount of research. As a matter of fact, our research has been published and 

acknowledged in 25 different peer-review journals. So what will 

happen if we get a project in, and we need expertise in the area, 

we might call upon some of those people. And the other organizations that I am familiar with, the CALDA, or lymedisease.org, 

Time for Lyme, which is now the Lyme Research Alliance, they 

also will do the same thing if we need people in the field to help 

us. 

But we do not ourselves—our organizations are basically organizations, patients and families of patients, but we have the resources with these people, who kindly give of their time to help us 

to achieve our mission. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Dr. Stricker, you testified that you 

have some 2,000 patients that you have taken under your wing and 

treated. What has been your takeaway from that huge patient 

number? And how far progressed are many of these people when 

they finally get to you?

Dr. STRICKER. I think one takeaway is that it shows that the 

number of Lyme disease patients far exceeds what the CDC reports, that the CDC reporting system is inadequate in terms of, 

you know, reporting all the patients with Lyme disease. They 

themselves admit it may be tenfold higher in terms of than what 

they report. 

95

Many of my patients come to me with years of suffering and misdiagnosis, like you have heard from the other speakers. The gratifying issue for me as a physician is that about 70 percent of those 

patients—I know that about 70 percent will get better. And for a 

physician to have that kind of a response is really very, very gratifying, and it makes me sort of turn a deaf ear to the political controversy and go on and treat these patients, and it makes it a very 

rewarding thing to do. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Could you elaborate a bit as to what 

that treatment entails?

Dr. STRICKER. Well, as you heard it, generally long-term antibiotics. These patients do not respond to short-term antibiotic 

treatment. Many of them have failed short-term antibiotics. When 

they come to me, many of them have not been diagnosed with 

Lyme disease, so they haven’t even considered treatment, and generally it is long-term antibiotics. 

We published a study last year of patients with neurologic Lyme 

disease required an average of 6 to 12 months of antibiotic therapy 

to improve, for their neurologic symptoms to improve. That gives 

you a general idea of what kind of treatment is needed. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Gibson. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, thanks very much, Mr. Chairman, and I have 

certainly found this event here to be very informative. 

I would like to take advantage of the panelists being here to seek 

their feedback. Clearly we are in wide agreement on everything 

here today. And so what I would ask is do any of the panelists 

know—or yourself—plan to apply for the money that we put in last 

year, the $8.75 million for research and for treatment and chronic 

Lyme is actually in the wording in the law. So I guess broadly I 

am interested in how we can be more effective. 

Is there something about the way—obviously we want to have 

more money, we know that, but is there something in the way we 

are wording the law and the language for the report that could be 

improved? And what about the RFP process; how can we provide 

better oversight to make sure that we get these monies to the right 

place? 

Dr. BARTHOLD. Well, as I said before, we in the scientific community chase the money, and if you simply enlarge the pot for Lyme 

disease research and spend it on large programs and so on that 

have already pretty much been done, we get nowhere. So if we recognize collectively, if NIH leadership recognizes, persistence after 

antibiotic treatment as an issue, then a focused call for applications 

looking at the biology will attract everybody and probably some 

new insight instead of the just the old-school club of people that 

feed off of Lyme disease. So a more narrowly focused call for applications is appropriate if NIH program people are willing to do that.

Mr. ESHOO. Yeah, I would just like to concur with that statement. Even our research has been almost all supported by government grants, and research foundations and private donors. So it is 

really—you know, the field needs this support right now to get off 

the ground. And I think targeted RFAs that are specifically targeting areas of need and carefully worded so that we don’t see, you 

know, a better serological test, for example, would be very beneficial.

96

Ms. SMITH. I would like to say that, first of all, we would never 

apply per se for those monies because we don’t perform research; 

however, I do believe it is extremely important that the wording 

has to be almost mandatory that these funds are going toward the 

chronic form of the disease no matter what it is called, because 

what has happened over the past number of years of my involvement is all the research funding, or a good percentage of it, is going 

to institutions and researchers who have basically addressed the 

same issues over and over, and they don’t fit the patient population 

that needs the help. 

The patient population, as you have heard today, are people, 

within quotes, ‘‘chronic Lyme disease.’’ So we need to be able to define that in such a way that the moneys are—actually go for that 

type of study, and it isn’t awarded, as has happened sometimes in 

the past, that says for chronic research, and it ends up being for 

post-Lyme syndrome, which is certainly a totally different issue. 

Additionally I think that there is a pressing need for a Federal 

advisory committee. Most other major diseases have advisory committees on, by the way, which patients and advocates sit, and no 

one says anything bad about them. No offense, but they don’t. And 

I think that their perspectives to this issue are very important. 

They are living these problems. They have a greater understanding, maybe not of the technical aspects, but how it is affecting 

them, and what kind of things need to be done to change that. 

So I think that you have to have patients, you have to have advocates, you must have the treating physicians. It is abhorrent to me 

that clinicians—it means nothing that they went to medical school. 

It means nothing that they have treated 2,000 patients or 4,000 patients for this chronic Lyme disease. It is taken away. They don’t 

have any validity. 

This is wrong. They are seeing reality. What is on a piece of 

paper is not necessarily reality; that is just people’s perceptions of 

what they think about this, it is not what is happening. And I see 

from my seat what is happening to patients. 

And I think that the government can do this. I think they have 

done it with other diseases. It is not even difficult to do, it is not 

costly to do. And, quite frankly, I really don’t understand why it 

hasn’t been done, and it has not been for a lack of advocacy. 

Mr. GIBSON. Thank you, and we will continue to work that, I can 

tell you. 

And then for Dr. Stricker, I am interested in hearing from the 

role of a mentor how in California you influence and try to expand 

Lyme literacy, particularly among newer doctors, but really all doctors, sort of—for those that even may be in midcareer, expanding 

their—enlightening them and expanding their understanding.

Dr. STRICKER. Well, ILADS does have a preceptorship program 

where physicians can come and spend time in my practice and 

other ILADS doctors’ practices to learn about diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease and to learn how to treat these patients. 

That has been very successful. It is funded privately, and that has 

been a way of mentoring doctors who want to get involved with the 

disease. 

But let me make one comment, and that is that I currently have 

a position in my practice for a Lyme-treating physician. I really 

97

cannot find anyone who is willing to take that position, and the 

reason is that with all the controversy around Lyme disease, doctors are basically unwilling to get involved in that controversy. And 

that controversy has really had a chilling effect on the mentorship 

and the development of physicians who can treat the disease. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Follow up on that. Is that because 

they might be censored by the State medical board? 

Dr. STRICKER. Absolutely. There is always that fear. I mentioned 

that in California we do have a physician protection law, but certainly censorship by medical board, censorship by your colleagues 

and by infectious disease experts is definitely a deterring factor in 

terms of doing that. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask the entire panel, if I 

could, how would you would react to that statement, and it was recently made, and it is very important if I could get your feedback 

from it: ‘‘There is no solid evidence despite many efforts that persistent infection occurs in humans following recommended treatment regimen.’’

Dr. STRICKER. Well, let me mention that in my written testimony 

there is a table that lists 27 studies that show exactly that persistence infection following accepted IDSA-type treatment for Lyme 

disease. And actually I realize that I hadn’t updated that table in 

a couple of years, so there are probably more studies now that 

show that. It is table 2. And that complements the other table, 

which is studies in animal models, that Dr. Barthold can address, 

that show basically the same thing. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

Dr. BARTHOLD. I have little to add, but working and making 

guesses at how to treat people will only get us so far, and I am a 

believer in basic biology studies. We need to understand what is 

going on with Borrelia in the mammalian host, be it a mouse, or 

a dog, or a primate or a human. Human studies are very difficult 

to do, and so animals allow us to extrapolate those findings. 

A lot of people are using the animal models, including the mouse 

model that I developed years ago, in their research, but they are 

all looking at the early phase of the infection when spirochetes are 

disseminating and causing acute inflammation and so on. And I am 

not aware of very many people that are looking at chronic persistent infection and the mechanisms by which Borrelia evades 

postimmune clearance. There may be less than five laboratories 

worldwide studying that phenomenon, and yet that is the most important aspect of this disease. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ms. Huyshe-Shires, did you want to 

comment on that?

Ms. HUYSHE-SHIRES. Just to corroborate what other witnesses 

have said, but there are well-documented cases of patients from 

whom Borrelia have been isolated after antibiotic treatment who 

were still symptomatic, still following further perhaps long-term 

antibiotics, then did recover. It is a very disputed area, and until, 

I think, everybody gets down together to actually decide on what 

facts we are uncertain, then we won’t move forward. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Huyshe-Shires, you mentioned in your testimony European 

guidelines for neurological Lyme disease; can you clarify where 

98

those guidelines were developed? Are they more flexible that the 

Infectious Diseases Society of America guidelines, and are those 

guidelines accepted in the UK? 

Ms. HUYSHE-SHIRES. The guidelines are accepted in the UK. 

They are not so much more flexible, but they state more clearly the 

uncertainties. So there are summary recommendations. 

But the guidelines got drawn up by the European Federation of 

Neurological Societies. These guidelines state on what basis they 

are drawn up, and they make the point that for neurological Lyme, 

there have been no good-quality European trials more than 28 

days. So although they recommend 21 to 28 days’ treatment in neurological Lyme, they say that this is based on a good practice and 

opinion, because there haven’t been any trials to say whether that 

it is better—whether a longer course, 35, 40 days, would be better. 

And, in fact, the studies that they quote, or the trials that they 

quote, you can see that the response rate varies from about 20 percent, 30 percent to 100 percent. They are often trials which show 

a good recovery for that short period, but most of them around 

about in the 50-, 70-percent response. Now, often clinicians quote 

trials and say European trials show an excellent response rate. A 

patient would not consider 7 out of 10 people responding to treatment as being excellent. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you. 

Ms. Smith, you mention in your testimony that children are at 

the highest risk of acquiring Lyme. Can you describe the consequences to children who contract it? I know your own children, 

two of them, have suffered the devastating impact of Lyme. Could 

you speak to that, please? 

Ms. SMITH. Yes. The effects on children are I am going to say 

more devastating in some ways, because, first of all, they are kind 

of defenseless oftentimes, and they can’t articulate the kinds of 

symptoms that they have. So what happens, not only do they have 

the medical complications which are obviously very serious, but 

they also are greatly impacted about what their peers, their 

schools, their teachers are saying about them. 

My own daughter was out of school for over 4 years on home instruction, and I was a board of education member. And I am not 

going to tell you that it wasn’t appalling to me at comments, you 

know, that were made that my daughter was trying to get out of 

school, that she wanted to stay home. And I finally said to someone, excuse me, but what 15-year-old wants to stay home with her 

mother for 4 years, and what mother wants to have her 15-yearold home for 4 years? 

But I guess the bottom line is the research studies that we have 

seen out of Columbia and other institutions have shown that these 

children benefit greatly from long-term treatment, and that oftentimes the short-term treatment really doesn’t help them, and sometimes maybe it hurts them, because it may stop immune response, 

they may not get a positive test, which then brings them down 

even further, because less people now believe them in the scheme 

of things. And so it is very hard for them, it is hard for their families. 

And, you know, I mentioned the Munchausen’s by proxy, and the 

reason I mentioned that is because I think that shows the extremes 

99

that some people and physicians will go to to, you know, make a 

point that there is no chronic Lyme disease, that these moms 

should not be having their children treated by licensed physicians 

with antibiotics—we are not talking about other types of medications. And here what is happening in many States across the country has happened already where the local family services departments will come in—and I have seen this happen—where one child 

is being treated for chronic Lyme, yet they will take away all the 

children from the mother. And this is abhorrent to me, and I don’t 

understand how in this century that this is still happening. 

And I would be remiss if I didn’t mention, Congressman Smith, 

that you intervened in New Jersey for us for a mom that was having that happen. So I think that you know personally that this is 

serious. 

And our kids are psychologically damaged. That is why there is 

a high rate, relatively high rate, of suicides among Lyme patients 

in general and children—or I should say suicide attempts. Fortunately they are not always successful. But I have been there with 

those moms when their children—after they have committed suicide, and it is the saddest thing in the world to me that we have 

the tools, we have the knowledge in this great country that we 

could put a stop to this. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Huyshe-Shires, can I just ask 

you when the Infectious Diseases Society of America came under 

fire from the attorney general from Connecticut, did that cause 

pause and perhaps some reflection on the part of Europeans as 

well as people in the UK about the accuracy of what their recommendations were all about? I mean, did people say, wait a 

minute, this small subgroup of people have been found to have conflicts of interests and suppression of evidence and information. Did 

that cause anyone to say, let’s do our own work on this? 

Ms. HUYSHE-SHIRES. Unfortunately not. There was a strong belief, as I have mentioned, that the expertise tended to be vested in 

really one, two or three people in the UK, and therefore people believe those few people. And because they have been engaged with 

the IDSA 2006 guidelines, they carried on supporting IDSA, and 

therefore everyone believed that there wasn’t a problem with IDSA. 

And, in fact, when the panel reported that they recommended some 

changes to the IDSA guidelines, and that Europe should be considered slightly differently, this was reported in the UK as a confirmation that IDSA guidelines could not be changed. 

So in this country, as far as the official NHS goes, there was no 

change at all, and no one recognized that IDSA had actually pointed out that there should be a few changes made. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Let me ask Mr. White—and I just 

have two more questions, and anything anyone would like to say, 

and if you have any final questions or comments. What would be 

your advice to those who have chronic Lyme disease symptoms but 

have not located a doctor as yet? What do you recommend to them? 

Mr. WHITE. Well, I think they actually need to do the same thing 

that my family did, and that is be as resourceful as possible, and 

dedicated to getting all the information that you can, and searching 

out the people like Pat Smith who can lead them to a knowledgeable physician that will give them effective treatment. 

100

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Ms. Smith, you mentioned the importance of having an agency, interagency, a coordinating committee 

that would include patients, clinicians and the like. I started out 

this hearing noting that I introduced two bills almost at the same 

exact time that had very similar components, including one was for 

autism and one was for combating Lyme. The autism became law. 

We now have the IACC, or the Interagency Autism Coordinating 

Committee, led by Dr. Insel. 

Just last week I joined others testifying before them, speaking to 

them about latest advances in combating autism. And you have patient groups, you have people of all walks in the room, diverse 

opinion, some who think that thimerosal is the cause of autism, 

and all of it is being treated very seriously to try to get to causation 

as well as the best way to mitigate that horrific developmental disorder. 

I am shocked and dismayed by the inability to do the same, I introduced almost identical bills, put the bills side by side, we borrowed ideas from both, including a task force and interagency with 

people of diverse opinions to try to really get to the bottom of this. 

I will remind everybody, we invited the Infectious Diseases Society 

of America to be here to testify, as well as NIH and CDC. That invitation stands. Hopefully they will get back to us so that we can 

continue this dialogue. But why contrary opinion is so frowned 

upon is beguiling to me. 

And I would just say parenthetically I served on the Veterans’ 

Affairs Committee for most of my time in Congress. I have been in 

Congress for 32 years. The first amendment—it wasn’t my amendment, but I was a cosponsor of it—that Tom Daschle offered was 

on Agent Orange, and it failed. And we know the evidence clearly 

supported service-connection presumption disability for those suffering from Agent Orange. Years later I am the one who held the 

hearings and offered legislation that became law on the Persian 

Gulf illness, which was attributed to stress rather than some other 

trigger which we know or believe is the cause. 

This inability to say, welcome all sides, so that we can get to the 

bottom of this is, like I said, beguiling. If any of you want to speak 

to that, I would surely like it, and I would like to ask as well my 

good friend Mr. Gibson if he has anything, and then final words go 

to you. 

Mr. GIBSON. Well, let me just wrap up by saying that, you know, 

I deeply appreciate your leadership. You have taken us far, very 

far, on these issues that you listed. I am the author of a bill right 

now to make sure that we get presumptive coverage to our Navy 

veterans who are serving offshore who have been exposed to Agent 

Orange and now have to fight to get that kind of coverage. 

Now, we do win some of those cases. Even in the 11⁄2 years I 

have been in the Congress, we have helped win these cases. But 

they should get presumptive coverage. And, in fact, through desalinization, they are exposed to 10 times more powerful from Agent 

Orange. That that was the kind of exposure they had from being 

offshore. 

So the passion that you have brought to these afflictions that we 

bring forward and the treatment that is necessary is deeply appreciated. We are going to continue to work this. We will be indefatiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 09:45 Oct 01, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00104 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 Y:\WORK\AGH\071712\75161 HFA PsN: SHIRL
101

gable on this issue, and we will work to bring forward the appropriations necessary so we get the research so that we get a better 

test. If we get a better test, then we get better treatment and ultimately change the guidelines, the CDC definitions, because we 

know, or at least we have been told, that insurance companies will 

then follow. And that is part of this equation, as well. 

So thank you. I appreciate all of the panelists for what they have 

contributed here today and, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership. I 

yield back. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. Gibson, thank you so very much 

for your leadership. 

And if anyone would like to make a final comment or suggestion, 

this would be the time. 

Dr. STRICKER. I would also like to echo the gratitude to the chairman for organizing this hearing, and just to say once again that 

we need a more comprehensive program for Lyme disease. We need 

better animal studies funded by the government. We need better 

diagnostic testing research. And we need better clinical trials to see 

how to treat Lyme disease, what the best way is to treat these patients. 

Ms. SMITH. In closing, I would particularly—besides thanking the 

committee—I would like to address those agencies in absentia, if 

you will. And I just want to say that advocacy groups that I work 

with all across the country, you know, they are really not adversarial. They are not adversarial at all. The people involved in them 

are fighting for their very lives. 

And so, these agencies forget. They are up there, and they are 

sometimes well-meaning; the bureaucracy gets in the way. I know, 

I was a school board president. I know about government bureaucracy. However, there comes a point in time when they have to stop, 

they have to look at the statistical data, they have to look at the 

reality, they have to talk to the treating physicians, they have to 

accept the patients and the advocates as being able to be part of 

this process, not as them being adversaries, but in sitting across 

the same table. 

I don’t have to agree with you. I have been married 44 years. I 

don’t always agree with my husband. Once in a while, we disagree. 

And so the point being is, it is not about that. It is about sitting 

down and discussing, ‘‘Guys, what can we do about it? How can we 

help these suffering patients?’’

And so that is why I came. That is why I have devoted most of 

my latter life, you know, to doing this. I don’t have any agenda 

other than that. And I would ask that they recognize those things 

about the patients and advocates. And, please, you know, sit with 

us. Let’s forget all this, and let’s move forward as to how can we 

get help for patients in this country and across the world. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Yes, Mr. Eshoo? 

Mr. ESHOO. I would like to expand on a point. I think, you know, 

good science will really help bring this community together on the 

same page. 

And, you know, I grew up in the San Francisco Bay area. And 

if you look back in the 1980s when the HIV outbreak was coming 

out, there was all kinds of hysteria associated with what was this 

102

coming from, how was it transmitted, what were the causes and 

sources. And, really, what shed a lot of light was good diagnostics. 

Suddenly now we could reliably tell, who had it, how it was transmitted, and the science behind the various. 

And I think that is really what Lyme disease needs, too. And I 

think, you know, some of the animal studies are especially relevant 

for these kinds of questions that we have in understanding the biology of this infectious agent. And good science will, I think, bring 

everybody together. 

Dr. BARTHOLD. I just would like to summarize. 

My career with Lyme disease started way back with Allen Steere 

in Connecticut. These are good people. People on the IDSA report 

are good people. The lay community are good people. But I am very 

saddened by the contentiousness that has evolved with this disease. People are backed into corners and protective. And I think we 

need to have open dialogue where everybody hugs and kisses and 

gets along. Because we all have the same goal, and that is to improve human health. 

And, as a veterinarian, I will say veterinary species, as well, are 

afflicted with this disease. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Mr. White or Ms. Huyshe-Shires, do 

you have any final comments before we conclude? 

Ms. HUYSHE-SHIRES. I would just like to agree with what most 

of the witnesses have said. We do need to work together. We need 

to come out of any entrenched positions. And we do need to get to 

the bottom of the science. We are improving our science all the 

time. And there is a lot to learn about Lyme disease. We do not 

know it all. 

Mr. WHITE. I would just like to add that, you know, I absolutely 

echo everyone’s sentiments, but I just want to put it in context, the 

fact that this has been a long time running and so such of this 

sounds very familiar to me from when I was much younger. And 

I think that that shows that it is time, that it is time for people 

to kind of get together, for everyone to kind of show their cards 

and, really, to act in the best interest of the collective community. 

I don’t, like you, understand what the basis is for this 

contentiousness when, clearly, so many people are being harmed at 

this point. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. On that last word, thank you so very 

much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:08 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(103)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

104

f


75161n.eps
105

f


75161m.eps
106

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS


75161g-1.eps
107


75161g-2.eps
108


75161g-3.eps
109

Æ


75161g-4.eps