Unfortunately the title will turn so many away from this book. If it helps, the author assumed climate change and isn't making an attempt to prove it. Interesting enough, the "climate change" in the title was what drew me into the book, but I am concluding that this isn't a great title for the book. I don't have any constructive criticism with that really, for example: another title. It needs to say something about the lack of compassion in the CDC and medical community for people that are suffering from Lyme Disease. I hope the quotes of doctors aren't that common when they say that a patient's case isn't Lyme Disease, but rather "Americanitis" (laziness), "schoolitis," "psychological inbalance," along with a whole other slew of demeaning phrases and belittling attitudes. Unfortunately, based on the way I hear doctors speak about folks that go off the CDC child vaccination guidelines in any way make me wonder if this condescend countenance is perhaps the norm and certainly what a person who is truly suffering from tick diseases should likely expect.
As if those last lines weren't contentious enough, I'll share a wee bit more...
This writer is a great writer...it's not often that I can barely put a non-fiction book down, but she managed to make me hold on tight for the ride. Additionally, the book is filled with evidence of great journalism which must include excellent research. Her references are bountiful.
If the controversy of Lyme Disease was one of logic or present day studies, then you would stand on good grounds to align with this author and the growing research that says things like Lyme Disease is: chronic; more common than the CDC claims on their website; not easily cured by a simple round of antibiotics (often taking many rounds to help); quite dangerous.
The CDC however bases their understanding of Lyme Disease on dated two-tiered testing which is inconsistent and unreliable. They educate doctors to go to great lengths to discount possible Lyme Disease cases, and all of this is strictly based on dogma, which is disgusting for science.
Don't get me wrong, I respect the CDC and am aware that everybody there is smarter than me, but Pfeiffer's critiques are easy to side with for me. Science is one of those fields where it does not help being humble. Things like their view of Lyme Disease and their dogmatic conclusions about it and their very specific schedule of putting vaccines into a child are subjects they need to form a conclusion on, but any conclusion has consequences. The consequences of their vaccine schedule are the belittlement of anyone (including pediatricians) that propose alternate schedules and the declining of certain vaccines that have complications that outweigh their benefits (according to some real life pediatricians). The consequences related to Lyme Disease are the lack of care and absence of quality of life for a patient who has this potentially debilitating disease. Other consequences are the threat Lyme Disease poses and our likely unpreparedness for this threat. What gets the money for studies Zika. What do you never hear about Lyme Disease.
You can disagree with me all day, but I think this book is especially important for folks that would minimize Lyme Disease's importance. What if your foundation on this subject was based in archaic research that has never been update but held to like it was a religion What if a two-tiered testing system is more of a scheme to only confirm Lyme in select individuals but was never meant to be the final testing method (as one scientist that helped originate this system claims it was meant to be)
Most importantly, what if those in the medical field are belittling people's real pain and suffering If you're okay with this and wouldn't want to change it, then you may need to consider a field that asks for a lot less compassion.