> I mean, regardless of the "side" or "stance", this is kind of the oldest, least honest logical fallacy in the book [1] - you're requiring somebody else to disprove existence of something? How, exactly?
> Typically, the burden of proof is on the entity making a claim.

I would argue here that hycaria is the entity making a claim here: he's arguing that chronic Lyme is nonexistent and essentially fraudulent. The point is that the existence of chronic Lyme cannot be disproved. I'd congratulate you for knowing the concept, but Russell's teapot is completely irrelevant here; if long-term treatment with antibiotics or other therapies is helpful for those who say they have CL, who are you to stop them?

> erm... no? I'm assuming there's a more profound intent behind this statement, but as it reads, no absolutely not. Doctors are not researchers, they are (to simplify, for purpose of this discussion) expert [and hopefully experienced] appliers of knowledge gained by others, over generations of hard work.

This is pretty much completely wrong. Physicians and doctors are a crucial component in the development of new medical knowledge; case studies of patients at family offices and hospitals inform decisions going as far up as the leadership at the CDC. Medicine is a two-way street.

> "In case of discrepancy between sticker and system, the system price will be held correct": in case of discrepancy between some random doctor and accumulated body of knowledge, body of knowledge wins.

I don't know how you drew this analogy, but the logic is a complete farce. Doctors are not robots. If it turns out my appendix is on the opposite side of my body from the medical norm, they don't just chop my intestines off halfway so as to adhere to the "accumulated body of knowledge." Nowhere in science and medicine do you discard real-world data when it disagrees with theory; any doctor will tell you this.

> As to the particulars of your claims when it comes to Lyme, observationally, people actively "shop" for a doctor that will prescribe them the treatment the patient desires. So the last word here is actually typically the patient's. :|

Sure, some doctors will help treat patients who self-diagnose. Wouldn't you argue that this would lead to a higher standard of care, though? Is adherence to standards preferable to a high quality of care? Have you ever read the Hippocratic Oath?

I predicted that I had Lyme after noticing I had Bell's palsy - facial paralysis - a common symptom of borreliosis. Every single test for Lyme, which arrived weeks later, was positive. Would you say that I "shopped around" for a doctor who would give me an "antibiotic fix"?

Why is it acceptable for an aging person to request all sorts of painkillers from their doctor, or acceptable for a patient with late-stage cancer to request experimental and risky therapy from some pharmaceutical startup, but it's utterly abhorrent and should be illegal for someone with Lyme (or whatever) to request, at their own cost, long-term antibiotic prescriptions from their physician?

Why specifically do people like you feel the need to antagonize sick people who are trying to get better?

For the record - I do not have chronic Lyme. Those questions were directed at hycaria.