
	Harumph. Getting published in these newsletters is hardly something
to aspire to. :-)
	I can't really argue with your logic, though I think you may be
extrapolating a bit recklessly from what appears to be a sample size of
one. Even if what you say about this local Pittsburgh guy is true, it is
not logical or fair to conclude that this is true of all doctors who
treat Lyme disease.
	By your logic, I could conclude that all of the physicians who
consult for insurance companies and make money by denying benefits to
Lyme patients are doing it for the money, rather than because they believe
they are encouraging good medicine. I have no idea how sincere these guys
are, but their motives are as suspect as the physicians you excoriate for
what you believe to be indiscriminate treatment.
	I would really feel more comfortable discussing the medical issues
in Lyme, rather than speculating as to the motives of the various parties
involved.
