Attack on my Authority

I want to email the authorities and ask them whether they ever took ethics courses. Because even if they are right that the tick didn't infect me with something, it's still blatant that the test is limited in several ways, for example the exclusion of non-borrelia infections. I don't support them in their certainty. So is it moral to completely sabotage my access to a standard course of antibiotics as well as my access to further/wider testing? Is it defensible, even if they're right, in a case where the patient is informed and disagrees with them?

The ultimate consequence of this 'moral loophole' is that my judgment has to be rendered delusional, or else they look bad for denying me what I ask for. My continued insistence that they rely on sketchy unreliable premises has been made central to my new diagnosis. It's a symptom. My insistence is a form of obsessive delusion typical of psychiatric patients. This way, the more I insist and speak about tick infections, the more mentally ill I appear to be.

The problem with this attack on me is that doctors agreed fully with my assessment, until the antibody detection test of the three subspecies came back negative from the laboratory. Then the doctors, following their guidelines, simply trusted their orders and declared me non-infected.

But why then is my journal full of mentions of a visible erythema migrans rash?

Why did a room full of doctors agree that an infection seemed likely and a spinal tap justified?

 Why do lots of experts agree that reality has proven the test unreliable?

The main difference between my conviction and that of the authorities is that I don' trust the science backing the guidelines. Just like most 'lyme science' was criticized for being 'sub standard' by the danish guideline co-author Ram Dessau, I know that the old foundation for lyme policies has been criticized for being badly designed. (for example in the "No Small Thing" article series)

I think that more than three subspecies could possibly cause borrelia, or that some people may be without immune response to the infection, or that it could be a different pathogen altogether (that the 'know-it-all' modern scientists are too busy to examine). If you have a healthy imagination, you can get many more options for shooting the test down below "100% reliability".

And it's not revolutionary to do so, since many high-profile cases of private treatment have been in the media. Typically rich people with lots of spare time to see through their doctor's ten-minute survey. Ordinary people, and young people trapped in the socialized economy, do not have the resources to fight back. We live and we die by the system's capability for justice.