I've often wondered WHY pharmaceutical companies would have any problem admitting to "chronic Lyme" when they stand to make millions on long-term antibiotic therapy. It never made sense to me. I could understand why insurance companies would have a problem; afterall, why would they want to pay out for the treatment? Here is one explanation I found on the Under Our Skin blog page. Makes sense now.
Submitted by John Kreutzer (not verified) on June 7, 2011 - 7:15pm.
To reply to your question about "why would pharmaceutical companies want to suppress the use of long-term antibiotic therapy" the answer lies in the cronic problems that were mentioned in the movie such as MS, ALS, Lupus, and so on. Doctors will tell you that they don't know what causes these "auto immune diseases" and that there is no cure. If Lyme is the cause and you are able to give a cure the cost to the pharmaceutical companies would be in the multiple billions every year.
I have Lyme as well as CNSV, my wife Crones and will be tested this week for Lyme. As this question, how much more money can pharmaceutical companies make on a lifetime of treatment for these two illness and their complication verses simple antibiotics?
By the way, I am not afraid to put my name with my thoughts. I am tired of dealing with doctors over the last 10 years and this movie is a reflection of my personal problems. How about you?