Below is yet another study documenting an epidemic of false Lyme disease diagnoses, from Türkiye where Lyme disease is rare.
LymeScience summary
Of 37 patients evaluated from 2021 and 2024 at two Turkish hospitals:
- The hospitals could confirm Lyme disease in only 1 patient (3%).
- 32 (86%) had received a “confirmed” Lyme disease diagnosis from somewhere, while the remaining 5 (14%) suspected they had Lyme disease.
- 22 (59%) had received antibiotics (range: 3 weeks to 5 years!).
Of 10 patients referred for in-hospital specialist consultation:
- 7 were dark-field microscopy positive, and no patient had a negative dark-field microscopy result
- All received alternate diagnoses:
- Bechet’s disease
- Multiple sclerosis
- Inflammatory spondylitis
- Familial mediterranean fever
- Psoriatic arthritis (x2)
- Fibromyalgia
- Generalized anxiety disorder and fibromyalgia (x2)
- Infective endocarditis
Dark-field microscopy scams: a perennial problem
It’s notable that at least 7 of 10 hospital-specialist-assessed patients received a false Lyme disease diagnosis based on a fraudulent dark-field microscopy technique. “Live blood analysis” using dark-field microscopy is a very old scam.
Microscopy is especially useless for diagnosis of Lyme disease in clinical practice because spirochetes would be too sparse in the blood to reliably detect an infection.
Among the numerous scandals involving fraudulent Lyme diagnoses, bogus microscopy techniques have been popular:
- In 2016, Danish journalists exposed a microscopy scam in Germany. A Dutch TV program posted the video on Facebook.
- Several “Lyme literate” quacks were found guilty of felonies in relation to diagnoses facilitated with the Bradford Variable Projection Microscope.
- There were many victims of Jo Ann Whitaker, M.D. and her Bowen Research & Training Institute.
- Morten Laane and Iver Mysterud’s so-called “LM-method” was discredited in 2016. [mirror] And they did not stop with claiming to detect chronic Lyme disease. The Epidemi web site documented how Laane and Mysterud incredibly claimed that seven of eight assessed patients had confirmed babesiosis and how they claimed one patient had at least 6 different infections!
LymeScience republishes:
Misdiagnosed Lyme: A Multidisciplinary Case Series from a Non-Endemic Region
Elif Er Gülbezer1, Oğuz Usta2, Deniz Güllü3,4,6, Şiran Keske2,5,6, Önder Ergönül2,5,6
1Department of Rheumatology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Türkiye
2Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Türkiye
3Koç University Faculty of Medicine, İstanbul, Türkiye
4Koç University Graduate Faculty of Health Sciences, İstanbul, Türkiye
5Clinic of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, American Hospital, İstanbul, Türkiye
6Koç University – Center for Infectious Diseases (KUISCID), İstanbul, Türkiye
Originally published on August 29, 2025 as a Scientific Letter in the Balkan Medical Journal.
PDF version | DOI: 10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2025.2025-6-239
Lyme disease, caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi and transmitted through Ixodes tick bites, is the most prevalent vector borne illness in North America and Europe. Early manifestations include erythema migrans and flu-like symptoms, which typically respond well to antibiotics.1 However, non-specific symptoms such as fatigue and musculoskeletal pain often create diagnostic uncertainty and contribute to overdiagnosis.2 Many patients referred for Lyme disease evaluation do not meet established diagnostic criteria and are ultimately found to have other medical or psychiatric conditions.3
Overreliance on serologic testing, particularly in low-prevalence settings, may yield false positives and lead to inappropriate treatment.4 In addition, some clinicians overdiagnose Lyme disease, occasionally bordering on quackery or fraud. Such practices result in unsupported diagnoses, further fueling overdiagnosis5 and posing significant diagnostic and therapeutic challenges.6 To illustrate this issue, we present a series of striking misdiagnosed cases from our clinical practice.
Between 2021 and 2024, we evaluated 37 patients who had been diagnosed with or suspected of having Lyme disease and were admitted to our two hospitals. Most were ultimately found to have alternative conditions-including infective endocarditis, Behçet’s disease, and psoriatic arthritis-diagnoses made possible through systematic multidisciplinary evaluation.
Of the 37 patients, 32 carried a confirmed Lyme disease diagnosis from external centers, while 5 were suspected cases without diagnostic testing. The cohort consisted of 19 males and 18 females, ranging in age from 7 to 71 years. Only one patient recalled a tick bite, and two others reported travel abroad without known exposure.
Serologic testing yielded variable results. Three patients met the two-tier IgM-positive criteria via ELISA and Western blot. Five were IgM-positive on ELISA only, with negative Western blots. Two were IgG-positive on ELISA without Western blot confirmation. Seven tested negative for both IgM and IgG on ELISA. In some cases, the initial Lyme disease diagnosis was based on spirochete-like structures observed under dark-field microscopy.
Twenty-two patients had received antimicrobial therapy for durations ranging from 3 weeks to 5 years, with some treated simultaneously with up to five antibiotic agents. Most had also been prescribed various supplemental therapies. Despite these extensive regimens, the majority experienced little or no clinical improvement.
Upon admission to our department, each case was re-evaluated through review of the patient’s medical history, comprehensive physical examination, and targeted laboratory testing when indicated. This reassessment confirmed Lyme disease in only one patient. Twenty-two patients were determined not to be infected with Borrelia and were reassured without need for further investigation. The remaining 14 were referred to appropriate specialties based on their clinical history and findings; 10 of these patients accepted and completed specialist evaluations within our hospitals.
Specialist consultations established alternative diagnoses for all 10 patients, enabling revised treatment plans that resulted in symptom resolution or marked improvement. Most were diagnosed by rheumatologists with conditions such as fibromyalgia or inflammatory arthritis, including psoriatic arthritis and spondyloarthritis. One patient was diagnosed with Behçet’s disease and another with familial Mediterranean fever, both representing autoinflammatory disorders.
Neurological evaluation led to a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis (MS) in one patient, necessitating initiation of disease-modifying therapy. Another patient was diagnosed with subacute infective endocarditis by the infectious diseases team- a life-threatening condition requiring urgent antimicrobial and supportive management.
Due to severe valvular damage at the time of diagnosis, this patient subsequently underwent heart valve replacement surgery. Clinical characteristics and final diagnoses of patients initially misdiagnosed with Lyme disease are summarized in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Clinical Characteristics, Initial Diagnostic Findings, and Final Diagnoses of Patients Initially Misdiagnosed with Lyme Disease.
| Age, gender, and chief complaint | Initial Lyme diagnostic findings | Treatment for Lyme | Clinical clues leading to re-evaluation | Final diagnosis | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 years, male, arthralgia | IgM positive, IgG negative; WB IgM positive; dark-field microscopy positive. | 3 months of antibiotics | Recurring monoarthritis (knee, foot); recurrent oral aphthous ulcers; diffuse papulopustular eruption on the back; clubbing; pathergy test positive; HLA B51 positive. | Bechet’s disease | Symptoms resolved, in remission with treatment. |
| 56 years, female, weakness in right arm and leg | IgM positive, IgG positive; WB IgG positive, WB IgM negative; dark-field microscopy positive. | 3 weeks of antibiotics | Loss of vision 18 years ago (treated with steroids); numbness and weakness in left arm and leg 6 years ago (treated with steroids); multiple demyelinating plaques on cranial MRI with contrast. | Multiple sclerosis | Neurology follow-up at another hospital. |
| 50 years, female, generalized myalgia | IgM negative, IgG negative; dark-field microscopy positive. | Antibiotics with supplements | Multiple hospital visits; normal laboratory results; normal skin biopsy; normal rheumatologic examination; depressive and anxious state with insomnia. | Generalized anxiety disorder/ fibromyalgia | Psychiatry follow-up at another hospital. |
| 40 years, female, low back and hip pain; arthralgia | IgM negative, IgG negative; dark-field microscopy positive. | Antibiotics with supplements | Inflammatory hip, back, and ankle pain; active sacroiliitis on X-ray and MRI; psoriasis, spondylitis, and rheumatoid arthritis in family history. | Inflammatory spondylitis | Symptoms resolved, in remission with treatment. |
| 71 years, female, head and neck pain; low back and hip pain; arthralgia | IgM negative, IgG negative; dark-field microscopy positive. | 9 months of antibiotics with supplements | Long-term diffuse inflammatory arthritis; syndesmophytes on X-ray; psoriasis in medical and family history. | Psoriatic arthritis | Symptoms resolved, in remission with treatment. |
| 32 years, male, recurrent fever with elevated acute- phase reactants | IgM negative, IgG positive; WB IgG positive. | 3 weeks of doxycycline | Recurrent fever; recurrent chest, abdominal, leg, and knee pain; increased acute-phase reactants with leucocytosis. | Familial mediterranean fever | Stabilized patient with no recent attacks; acute-phase reactants normalized. |
| 41 years, female, low back and hip pain; arthralgia | IgM negative, IgG negative; dark-field microscopy positive. | – | Inflammatory low back and hip pain for 6 years; ankle and Achilles pain for the last 4 months; plantar fasciitis; skin biopsy consistent with psoriasis; active sacroiliitis on MRI. | Psoriatic arthritis | Partial response with therapy, drug adjustment. |
| 33 years, female, chronic fatigue; headache; Fainting | IgM positive, IgG negative; WB IgM positive. | – | – | Fibromyalgia | Psychiatry follow-up at another hospital. |
| 51 years, male, fatigue | IgM negative, IgG negative; WB IgM and IgG negative. | – | – | Generalized anxiety disorder/ fibromyalgia | Psychiatry follow-up at another hospital. |
| 65 years, male, fatigue; headache; leg pain; weight loss; elevated acute- phase reactants | IgM negative, IgG negative; dark-field microscopy positive. | 6 weeks of ceftriaxone, doxycycline, and azithromycin | Increased CRP and WBC; heart murmur on auscultation; vegetation on native cardiac valve seen in TTE and TEE. | Infective endocarditis | Cured with antibiotics; heart valve replacement surgery. |
WB, western blot; MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; CRP, C-reactive protein; WBC, white blood cells; TTE, transthoracic echocardiography; TEE, transoesophageal echocardiography; HLA, human leukocyte antigen.
The diagnosis of Lyme disease remains challenging due to variations in clinical presentation and differences in diagnostic criteria. A recent meta-analysis highlighted discrepancies between American and European guidelines, particularly in non-endemic regions such as Türkiye.7 These inconsistencies, combined with physician misdiagnosis, contribute to inappropriate treatment, as illustrated by our case series.
A critical epidemiologic factor in diagnosing Lyme disease is a history of tick exposure, given that Borrelia burgdorferi is transmitted through Ixodes tick bites. In our series, however, only one patient reported a prior tick bite, and only two had traveled abroad. Although some individuals may not recall a tick bite because of the small size of nymphal Ixodes ticks, epidemiologic risk assessment remains an essential element of diagnosis.
Serologic testing was frequently positive but did not correlate with clinical improvement after antimicrobial therapy. False positive serologic results may arise from cross-reactivity with other pathogens or non-specific antibody responses.8,9 This highlights the importance of integrating clinical findings with laboratory results rather than relying solely on serology for diagnosis.
Dark-field microscopy was also used in some patients to identify structures resembling spirochetes. However, this method is not recommended for Lyme disease due to its low sensitivity and high false-positive rates. Artifacts and other microorganisms can easily be mistaken for Borrelia species, leading to misdiagnosis and unnecessary treatment. A narrative review concluded that dark-field microscopy has significant limitations and should not be employed as a diagnostic tool for Lyme disease.10
The misdiagnosis of Lyme disease in our patients resulted in prolonged and unnecessary antimicrobial treatments, lasting from 3 weeks to 5 years, without clinical improvement. Incorrect diagnoses also delayed identification and management of the true underlying conditions. In some cases, the consequences were severe-for example, the patient with subacute infective endocarditis, where timely recognition and treatment were critical to prevent life-threatening complications. Similarly, delays in diagnosing conditions such as MS and inflammatory arthritis led to extended symptom burden and potential disease progression. These findings underscore the importance of reconsidering a Lyme disease diagnosis in patients with persistent symptoms unresponsive to standard antimicrobial therapy. A multidisciplinary approach facilitated accurate diagnoses and effective treatment, as summarized in Table 1. Misdiagnosis not only prolonged inappropriate antimicrobial use but also allowed underlying conditions to progress unchecked. The most severe case involved a patient with undiagnosed infective endocarditis who required urgent antimicrobial therapy. By the time the correct diagnosis was established, irreversible cardiac damage had occurred, necessitating heart valve replacement surgery.
In conclusion, diagnosing Lyme disease requires caution, particularly in non-endemic regions. Overreliance on serologic testing-especially misinterpretation of Western blot results-and nonspecific methods such as dark-field microscopy can lead to misdiagnosis and inappropriate treatment. A multidisciplinary approach, strict adherence to established guidelines, and thorough clinical evaluation are essential for ensuring diagnostic accuracy and optimizing patient management.
Informed Consent: Informed consent was obtained from the patient.
Authorship Contributions: Concept- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Design- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Supervision- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Fundings- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Materials- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Data Collection or Processing- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Analysis and/or Interpretation- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Literature Review- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Writing- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.; Critical Review- E.E.G., O.U., D.G., Ş.K., Ö.E.
Conflict of Interest: No conflict of interest was declared by the authors.
References
1. Kugeler KJ, Schwartz AM, Delorey MJ, Mead PS, Hinckley AF. Estimating the frequency of lyme disease diagnoses, United States, 2010-2018. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27:616-619.
2. Cairns V, Wallenhorst C, Rietbrock S, Martinez C. Incidence of lyme disease in the UK: a population-based cohort study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e025916.
3. Feder HM Jr, Johnson BJ, O’Connell S, et al. A critical appraisal of “chronic Lyme disease”. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:1422-1430. [LymeScience mirror]
4. Marques A. Chronic Lyme disease: a review. Infectious Disease Clinics of North America. 2008;22:341–360. [mirror]
5. Sébastien P, Jacques D, Catherine P, Xavier G. Diagnosis and treatment of “chronic Lyme”: primum non nocere. BMC Infect Dis. 2023;23:642.
6. Lantos PM, Charini WA, Medoff G, et al. Final report of the lyme disease review panel of the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2010;51:1-5. [full version]
7. Yıldız AB, Çetin E, Pınarlık F, Keske Ş, Can F, Ergönül Ö. Discrepancy between IDSA and ESGBOR in Lyme disease: individual participant meta-analysis in Türkiye. Zoonoses Public Health. 2024;71:337-48.
8. Seriburi V, Ndukwe N, Chang Z, Cox ME, Wormser GP. High frequency of false positive IgM immunoblots for Borrelia burgdorferi in clinical practice. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2012;18:1236-1240.
9. Fallon BA, Pavlicova M, Coffino SW, Brenner C. A comparison of lyme disease serologic test results from 4 laboratories in patients with persistent symptoms after antibiotic treatment. Clin Infect Dis. 2014;59:1705-1710.
10. Önal U, Saraç-Pektaş F, Sağlık İ. Is There a role for dark field microscopy in the diagnosis of lyme disease?A narrative review. Infect Dis Clin Microbiol. 2023;5:281-286.
Corresponding author: Önder Ergönül, Department of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, Koç University Faculty of Medicine; Clinic of Infectious Diseases and Clinical Microbiology, American Hospital; Koç University – Center for Infectious Diseases (KUISCID), İstanbul, Türkiye
Received: June 27, 2025 Accepted: August 18, 2025 Available Online Date: August 29, 2025 • DOI: 10.4274/balkanmedj.galenos.2025.2025-6-239 Available at www.balkanmedicaljournal.org
ORCID iDs of the authors: E.E.G. 0000-0003-4617-7760; O.U. 0009-0000-6766-0896; D.G. 0000-0002-4038-2934: Ş.K. 0000-0003-3823-4454; Ö.E. 0000-0003-1935-9235.
Cite this article as: Er Gülbezer E, Usta O, Güllü D, Keske Ş, Ergönül Ö. Misdiagnosed Lyme: A Multidisciplinary Case Series from a Non-Endemic Region. Balkan Med J.; Copyright@Author(s) – Available online at http://balkanmedicaljournal.org/
This paper is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
