262 Robert A. Aronowitz Some heterodox objections to the vaccine echoed a standard observa- tion made by historians of technology and science: scientific practices and technologies often have built into them the choices, values, and interests of specific groups. Critics observed that the values and inter- ests of LD experts and pharmaceutical companies shaped the design of vaccine and drug clinical trials, which in turn shaped beliefs about what was true about LD and everyday clinical practices. There was, in ef- fect, great path dependency on some initial decisions and commitments made by scientists, clinicians, and regulators who shared the orthodox view. Exhibit number one for this line of criticism was the relationship between the vaccine and the diagnostic criteria for LD, long a battlefield in the “Lyme wars.” Many people in the heterodox community were incensed when in 1994, years before the launch of OspA vaccines, ex- perts at a consensus group meeting in Dearborn, Michigan, sponsored by the CDC, removed from the diagnostic criteria a Western Blot band associated with an antigen likely to be part of the LD vaccine. This band was removed so that the immunological tests would not be “fooled” by vaccination, that is, falsely diagnosing LD among the merely vacci- nated. Some LD advocates objected that some infected people would be excluded from their “rightful” LD diagnosis because of these changed criteria. In effect, these would-be LD patients, now ineligible for the diagnosis, were sacrificed by the CDC experts in order to accommodate a vaccine of dubious value. One LD advocate observed that the changed laboratory criteria meant that it was now impossible for us to know which of our children are infected and which are not. It is therefore impossible to gauge the true safety or efficiency of this vaccine, efficacy of this vaccine in this population. . . . On the other hand, in the world of SmithKline Beecham data, we do find LYMErix; we have an experiment whose success is based, in part, on a set of criteria created to enable the success of the experiment. (Kay Lyon, VRBPAC 2001) From the orthodox perspective, arguing that different bands on Western blots should be used to define LD was an intrusion into mat- ters best left to the experts. And observing that diagnostic criteria were changed to minimize the chance that vaccinated people might later be falsely diagnosed with Lyme disease was sensible and unexceptional clinical policy.