this post was submitted on 29 Mar 2026
11 points (92.3% liked)

Asklemmy

53762 readers
562 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
 

I know for example: there was a guy who got bitten by a tick in Australia and yet doctors still think "nothing is wrong" just because Australia doesn't recognize Lyme Disease since their argument is "no scientific proof that ticks in our country transmit the bacteria" which sounds stupid when there are cases of people having Lyme Disease there.

And he's not the only one: as a woman shared the symptoms he had, but Australia FOR SOME reason is still in denial as their counterargument sticks on "NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF THAT OUR TICKS HAVE IT" so she spent money on getting the results in another country where Lyme Disease is officially recognized paid from her own pocket.

In comparison:

  • is Lyme Disease recognized in the United States?
  • If so, how common is it amongst the population?
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] LtDan@lemmy.zip 4 points 15 hours ago (1 children)
[โ€“] otter@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

So they don't explicitly mention "chronic" Lyme disease in the video, and I couldn't find any other articles from looking up the names mentioned, but it does sound like that's what is being talked about here.

What I would be curious about is if these patients got the antibody test. If they didn't, that seems like a relatively easy policy fix. Bacteria can spread to other countries and go undetected, and the test isn't that invasive compared to the peace of mind it would give patients. Same

However if they did get the test and it came back negative, then it gets more complicated. Doctors don't want to put someone on treatment for something that can't be detected. Every medication has side effects and you would end up harming someone without evidence of a benefit. Where it gets messy is when people go for "diagnosis" or "treatment" abroad.

I did actually find this from last October

https://www.health.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-11/australian-government-response-to-the-senate-community-affairs-references-committee-report-access-to-diagnosis-and-treatment-for-tick-borne-diseases.pdf

 Overview

The Australian Government appreciates the opportunity to respond to the Senate
Community Affairs References Committee list of recommendations on the Access to
diagnosis and treatment for people in Australia with tick-borne diseases. The Government
thanks the Committee and the various stakeholders for their valuable and thoughtful input
to the Inquiry.
The Government acknowledges the concerns of patients who are facing issues accessing
diagnosis and treatment with tick-borne illnesses. In early 2013, the Department of Health,
Disability and Ageing began engaging with patients, medical practitioners, and advocacy
groups to discuss concerns about Lyme disease. In 2016, the department engaged and
addressed the Senate Inquiry recommendations into Growing evidence of an emerging tick-
borne disease that causes a Lyme-like illness (2016 Inquiry) through a range of measures
such as public education materials, research and guidance for medical practitioners. As a
result, the department has gained a deeper appreciation and growing concern for those
Australians experiencing issues relating to tick-borne diseases.
This response addresses the specific recommendations raised in the current Senate
Committee's Report. The Government remains open-minded about the cause of the various
complexes which manifest as a range of chronic debilitating symptoms. The best outcome
for patients and health practitioners is to not draw conclusions based on poor levels of
evidence, but to consider each patient thoroughly in a multidisciplinary medical approach
that makes the best use of clinical expertise and available diagnostic skills and technology.
The Government remains engaged with the patient and medical community to continue to
find, share and understand the evidence associated with tick-borne diseases. The
Government hopes its continued work with clinical medicine and research communities will
result in answers and relief for patients and their families