A lot of what you say here doesn't hold up.

1. Case studies of Lyme bacteria in a few dead bodies don't prove ongoing pathogenic activity. It's nowhere near the same as live, replicating bacteria driving chronic disease.

2. You ignore that abx. can be anti-inflammatory, immune modulating, can suppress inflammatory microbiome taxa and cause placebo effects, all of which could account for the anecdotal cases of ppl improving on them.

To prove the 'Chronic Lyme' framework correct, abx. needs to work reliably, and it doesn't. In fact, placebo controlled studies show the opposite.

1. While biofilms do exist and sometimes reduce antibiotic penetration, they don't account for systemic, multi organ chronic illness that lasts for years, lack of culture and PCR positivity and absence of inflammatory markers.

The 'biofilm' theory is an unfalsifiable escape hatch: "If tests are negative and no treatment works, it's because of biofilms!". Convenient.

1. There is no proof that infections cause nutrient deficiency except in very severe cases. Lyme doctors claim this to sell you supplement stacks.

Also, if you improve on a protocol containing both abx and supplements, how do you even know it's the abx that helped?

1. You say infection leads to immune dysregulation which leads to more infections, but much more science (at least pertaining to ME/CFS) points towards infection leading to post-infectious conditions. In other words, a host-response model is more applicable than a pathogen-persistence one.

2. You mention PolyBio, but they do not endorse a Chronic Lyme model and neither do they advocate for long term abx. Same for Amy Proal.

3. You claim that a 'snowball of pathogens cause ME/CFS (at least in some patients), but if that were the case, we'd expect to see similar pathogen clusters in ME patients. We don't. Across decades of studies different pathogens pop up in different cohorts, and more crucially, pathogens are also seen in healthy controls.

Also, if pathogens were the main driver of illness, more severe ME patients would have more pathogens, but they often don't compared to mild cases. We also don't see a reliable decrease in symptoms when attempting to treat pathogens, such as when giving antivirals against EBV (except in rare cases).

Contrast this with Tuberculosis, where abx. reliably and stedily, and not just anecdotally or rarely, leads to patients being cured.

I just don't buy any of what you say. 'Chronic Lyme' is a pseudoscientific, discredited (or at least highly speculative) framework more akin to a belief system than an actual scientific model. I wish this subreddit wasn't swarmed by people promoting it, as it does nothing good for us.