T he year 2016 saw its share of excellent tick-borne disease articles as well as the usual stinkers. Here is a short list of good and bad articles from the past year.
Good articles are based on scientific evidence that is current and unbiased. The articles generally undergo objective peer review and are published in independent journals. Bad articles are based on expert opinion or evidence that has been refuted by newer studies. The articles generally undergo “like-minded” peer review and are often published in specialty society journals.
Here is a sample of good articles with their conclusions:
…….. Join or login below to continue reading.
You must be a LymeDisease.org member to access this content.
If you are already a member, log in below. Otherwise, become a member today to access the full content of this article and the full library of Lyme Times articles.
* Physician Directory Memberships do not have access to the Lyme Times.