There is no science to support “chronic Lyme disease” diagnosis or treatments, so advocates have lobbied politicians in organized efforts to legitimize destructive practices.
This page includes resources to learn more, plus a listing of pending legislation.
Lawmakers may have good intentions, but they don’t possess the expertise to decide whether it’s beneficial, cost-efficient, or safe, to keep using strong medicines to treat a condition the medical establishment doubts is real. […] Patients whose lives have been upended by Lyme disease need more answers, but they should come out of a medical lab, not a legislature.
— Boston Globe Editorial Board (Lyme bill a prescription for trouble)
We sympathize with patients who suffer from the wide array of symptoms that have been attributed by some to be due to so-called “chronic” Lyme disease, but we are concerned that most of these patients have been improperly diagnosed and may be receiving a treatment, i.e., long-term antibiotic therapy, that will do them more harm than good.
— Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA Letter to Congress, 2009)
Exempting dangerous therapy from regulatory oversight, as LLMD-protection laws do, is a blunt, inflexible, and alarmingly irresponsible response to the demands of a fringe group of physicians and their patients. […] Enactment of LLMD-protection statutes by several states endangers the very patients those states aim to serve.
— Joseph B. Franklin, PhD, JD (Antibiotic Maximalism: Legislative Assaults on the Evidence-Based Treatment of Lyme Disease)
As long as advocacy groups can, by dint of their vocal and vote volume, retain the notice of elected officials, there will continue to be more attention paid to their information than the results of scientific studies and logic.
— Dr. Leonard H. Sigal, MD (JAMA, 1997)
Resources
- Infectious Diseases Society of America Policy Primer for State Legislators
- Infectious Diseases Society of America Opposition letters to Lyme legislation
- The CDC, NIH, and international medical organizations all warn against longterm antibiotic treatments for Lyme disease. Of course, the vast majority of those who believe they have chronic Lyme never had Lyme disease to begin with. According to the CDC, Bartonella is not a tick-borne disease and usually goes away on its own.
- American Lyme Disease Foundation: “What do the Experts Recommend about the Treatment of Lyme Disease?”
- Slate: Don’t protect Lyme quacks
- Letters from doctors explaining the danger to children and adults of chronic Lyme quackery
- Lyme bill a prescription for trouble
- NY Times Ethicist: What to Do About a Physician Who May Be a Quack
- Dr. Daniel Summers: Predator Doctors Take Advantage of Patients With ‘Chronic Lyme’ Scam
- Dr. Steven Novella: Connecticut Legislature Intrudes on Debate Over Chronic Lyme Disease
- Science-Based Medicine: Political Science: Chronic Lyme Disease
- Science-Based Medicine: More Political Science: Proposed laws protect “Lyme literate” doctors from discipline
- Steven Salzberg, PhD of Johns Hopkins: Long-Term Antibiotic Use For Lyme Disease Doesn’t Work, Study Finds
- Dr. Mark Drapkin: Lawmakers overreach in casting themselves as infectious disease specialists
- Late You Come: Legislation on Lyme Treatment in an Era of Conflicting Guidelines
- Integrative Medicine: A brand, not a specialty
- Society for Science-Based Medicine: “Chronic” Lyme disease bill becomes law in Maine
- Pediatrician Dr. Chad Hayes describes his visit to an “integrative medicine” conference
- Other legislative guide: Naturopathic Diaries
- Analysis of chronic Lyme stories in Australia, where there is no endemic Lyme disease
- Lyme Inc.
- Bill C-442 and “Chronic Lyme Disease”: the parallels with “chronic brucellosis”
- Healthy Debate: The role of patient advocates in Lyme disease policy should be limited
- Antibiotic Maximalism: Legislative Assaults on the Evidence-Based Treatment of Lyme Disease
- Canadian Medical Association Journal: Lyme law uses “junk science” says expert
- Medical Quality Assurance Commission of the Washington State Medical Commission: Lyme Treatment report
2020 Legislative Sessions- In plain English
All bills of importance to this page and still pending should be listed here. Please contact us if you have anything to add. Click the bill number for status.
(work in progress- updated 2020-02-19)
Table of contents
Arizona
Our recommendation: Vote No. These bills will endanger patients by shielding dangerous doctors from regulation. Victims may be left with no recourse.
Alyssa Goodale is an Arizona victim of chronic Lyme quackery.
Illinois
Our recommendation: Vote Yes.
Indiana
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Kentucky
SB61– Protects doctors who commit malpractice and defraud patients with dangerous and unnecessary treatments
Our recommendation: Vote No.
HB435– Requires that insurance companies pay for dangerous and fraudulent treatments.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Michigan
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Neutral
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Neutral
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Minnesota
Our recommendation: No specific recommendation
New Hampshire
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote no.
Our recommendation: Vote no.
New Jersey
New York
Our recommendation: Vote No, because the bill facilitates unnecessary testing. The American College of Rheumatology recommends “Don’t test for Lyme disease as a cause of musculoskeletal symptoms without an exposure history and appropriate exam findings.“
Our recommendation: Vote No.
A01345 – Establishes a special fund to examine and evaluate current research and progress in the development of a Lyme disease vaccine.
Our recommendation: No specific recommendation
Our recommendation: Vote No.
S01303– Establishes that the council on human blood and transfusion services shall review all current medical research and guidance regarding the donation of blood by patients with a history of Lyme or tick-borne illnesses.
Our recommendation: Vote No. We believe this bill is unnecessary because it duplicates existing public health efforts.
Our recommendation: No specific recommendation
Our recommendation: Vote No.
S01297– Directs promulgation of rules and regulations concerning removal of ticks from pupils and notification to parents.
Our recommendation: undecided
Our recommendation: No specific recommendation
S01247 – Authorizes the commissioner of health to award grants for graduate medical education in Lyme and tick-borne disease and to designate organizations as centers for Lyme and tick-borne disease excellence.
Our recommendation: Vote No, because the bill is unnecessary. There are already well-established scientific organizations in Lyme and tick-borne disease. This bill seems designed to legitimize anti-science Lyme organizations and potentially funnel money to them.
Our recommendation: Vote No
Status: Vetoed by governor
Our recommendation: Vote No
Our recommendation: undecided
Our recommendation: Vote No
S05873– Directs the commissioner of agriculture and markets to develop and conduct a public awareness campaign regarding Lyme disease and other tick-borne diseases.
S8681– taxpayer gifts for Lyme and tick-borne diseases
Our recommendation: Vote No
Pennsylvania
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Status: Passed House and was sent to the Senate
Washington State
HB2332– Shields dangerous health professionals from regulation
See also:
- LymeScience: Washington State page
- Medical Quality Assurance Commission of the Washington State Medical Commission: Lyme Treatment report
Washington, DC
B23-0534– Requires an unnecessary notification about testing
Our recommendation: Vote No.
Wisconsin
AB313 and SB300– Establishing a tick-borne disease study committee
Our recommendation: Vote No.