Not sure what to make of this literature now. Seems inconsistent, mostly dependent on how "persistent symptoms" is defined.
Look at the first sentence of the Dutch study: "Concerns about long-lasting symptoms attributed to Lyme Borreliosis (LB) are widespread in the western would, while those symptoms are highly prevalent in the general population." Without reading a word more, I'd respond apples and oranges. A brief ice headache brought on from biting into ice cream, although technically a headache, is not long-lasting and does not rise to the intensity of, say, a migraine.
Without reading the entire study, that first sentence suggests to me that the results may manage to reduce to the mantra that achieved notorious levels in 2006 with the newly released Lyme Guidelines suggesting that persisting symptoms were likely little more that the aches and pains of everyday life - something everybody experiences. It seemed that if you couldn't see the symptom, e.g. facial palsy, grossly swollen knees etc, then those symptoms that they would label as subjective, were a) minor, and b) degree or intensity and duration and didn't seem to hold any particular import. Nor to me did it appear that when it comes to persistent symptoms, did the notion the whole, at times, can be greater than the sum of the parts play any great role in deliberations.
But I will tackle the rest of the study and give it its fair due when I feel up to it. I don't want to be rash and prejudge it. I will do my best to read it all.
As for Aucott's recent endeavor, he's an unusual guy in my estimation. He is somewhat famous being a John's Hopkins guy who endorses the idea that persistent symptoms in Lyme can in fact be debilitating. That's great! But he also endorses this contrived PTLDS creature. Why? Well, who can say? Does it have anything to do that he was once an infectious disease guy, but now he's a rheumatologist, if memory serves me? Which may suggest he might be looking for that Holy Grail of an autoimmune nature? I like Aucott. I believe he is trying to serve the patient. I just happen to think he's coming at it from the wrong camp. Again, I will read his latest effort when I feel up to it. It's difficult for me to read long things without the process exacting a stiff toll these days.
Thank you,
@Michiel Tack , for bringing both studies to every body's attention.
Edit to add: The Dutch thing appears to involve patients mostly treated in acute stage. This is NOT the same as treating after the disease has disseminated. Sigh. Moreover, it seems they only followed patients for 12 months. I was asymptomatic my first 12 months. Even Willy Burgdorfer warned about the prevelence of asymptomatic Lyme following infection.