Нe “primum non nocere” concept taught for millennia seems to be ethically strained in all aspects of Lyme disease. Нe lack of attention towards peer reviewed reports and both repeated and repeatable isolation of the spirochete in the brains of AD patients seems to be bioethically indefensible. Нe fact that diagnosis of LD rests on clinically ambiguous findings that are considered essential for the diagnosis is clearly not in the best interest of the patient. In addition, to adhere to an antimicrobial treatment that is suboptimal seems hardly defensible in the context of patient care. By keeping outdated guidelines in place, insurance companies are only too willing to hold patients and physicians to these clearly inadequate diagnostic components [20]. By considering the “argument for rational research” whereby judgment is withheld until further evaluation is considered, this epistemic humility will serve research and patients far more eوٴectivel\. Currently, the only FDA approved treatments for Alzheimer’s disease merely address the symptoms of AD and not the etiology. By limiting the conversation and disregarding not only the clear presence of Borrelia in the brains of AD patients, but also the clear pathophysiology that has been well outlined whereby the spirochete can create biofilms well documented in the brains of AD patients, ignores the potential to consider early intervention in a disease that costs more than any other disease in America to treat.

Submit manuscripts through online link: https://www.longdom.org/submissions/clinical-research-bioethics.html or as an attachment to below Email Id

Eliza Grace
Managing Editor
Journal of Clinical Research and Bioethics
Email: bioethics@eclinicalsci.com
What’s App : +1-947-333-440