Please upgrade to a new Web browser for best viewing this site!

American Lyme Disease Foundation, Inc.

American Lyme Disease Foundation, Inc.
P.O. Box 466
Lyme, CT 06371

“Under Our Skin” – Part 2, a Film Review Re-visited

Near the beginning of the film entitled, “Under Our Skin”, there is a rather poignant scene in which a Forest Ranger, who has been told that he has Lyme disease, is sitting at a table, quixotically examining what appear to be hundreds of vials of prescribed medication. The scene prompts one to ask several questions:

What type of physician, who we later learn is a Lyme literate physician (LLMD), is treating this man?

What is the rationale for the treatment he is receiving? Does it appear that the LLMD is simply guessing, i.e., trying “a little bit of this and a little bit of that”, hoping that something will work? Does it look like good medicine is being practiced?

If any of the medications being given happens to be of benefit, how would one know which one -- of the many being taken-- is beneficial?

If the patient improves, how can one tell if the improvement is spontaneous (a placebo effect?) and has nothing at all to do with any of the medication taken?

Is this treatment regimen typical of that usually recommended by a LLMD? If so, then what is the standard of judgment for their “literacy” with respect to Lyme disease?

From what body of knowledge do LLMDs derive their literacy and self-assumed competence to treat Lyme disease? How many of them have peer-reviewed publications based on the clinical or basic research they have done on Lyme disease?

How much is all this therapy costing the patient in out-of-pocket expenses? Does one honestly think that a health insurance company should be required to pay for such unorthodox -- and obviously unproven-- therapeutic approaches that are not evidence-based?

In contrast to the scientific evidence provided in the guidelines for the treatment of Lyme disease by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), is such a therapeutic approach based on the results of placebo-controlled clinical trials, or only solicited testimonials?

That pile of pills at the beginning of the film hardly inspires confidence in the clinical knowledge and skills of LLMDs. The producers themselves – and in their own words-- provide ample grounds for condemning this film as a slick piece of propaganda of no redeeming value. Only the desperate and gullible would derive comfort from its false and deceptive message that benefits only those who enrich themselves by preying upon such people. At your own peril, beware of those who call themselves LLMDs! Shame on them for the harm that they do and the money they take!