Medical Disclaimer: This article is for educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. The clinical approaches described herein reflect one physician’s published model and are presented for scholarly discussion. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a recommendation for self-diagnosis or self-treatment. Patients should consult a qualified healthcare provider regarding any medical condition. The content of this blog does not establish a physician–patient relationship.

Yoon Hang “John” Kim, MD, MPH

Board-Certified in Preventive Medicine | Fellowship trained in Integrative Medicine & Scholarship Recipient of Institute of Functional Medicine

Direct Integrative Care • www.directintegrativecare.com

Introduction

Lyme disease, caused by the spirochete Borrelia burgdorferi, is the most common vector-borne illness in the United States, with an estimated 476,000 cases diagnosed annually [1]. While standard short-course antibiotic therapy is curative for the majority of patients, approximately 10–20% develop persistent, debilitating symptoms—a condition variably termed post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS) or chronic Lyme disease (CLD) [2]. The pathogenesis of these persistent symptoms remains among the most contentious debates in modern infectious disease.

Steven Phillips, MD, a Yale-trained internist and zoonotic disease specialist based in Wilton, Connecticut, has emerged as one of the most prominent voices challenging prevailing orthodoxy on this subject. His book, Chronic: The Hidden Cause of the Autoimmune Pandemic and How to Get Healthy Again (co-authored with Dana Parish), synthesizes decades of clinical experience treating tens of thousands of patients with complex tick-borne illness and proposes the umbrella term “Lyme+” for infection-triggered autoimmune disease [3]. This article examines the key tenets of the Phillips model, situates them within the current peer-reviewed literature, and considers their relevance to integrative and functional medicine practice.

The Infection–Autoimmunity Nexus

The central thesis of the “Lyme+” model is that chronic, often occult infections—particularly B. burgdorferi and its co-pathogens (Bartonella, Babesia, Anaplasma)—can serve as triggers for autoimmune, rheumatologic, neuropsychiatric, and chronic fatigue–type syndromes. Phillips argues that a substantial proportion of patients labeled with conditions such as seronegative rheumatoid disease, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, or “post-Lyme syndrome” may harbor treatable underlying infections [3].

This proposition is not without peer-reviewed support. Steere and colleagues have demonstrated that post-infectious Lyme arthritis is characterized by an excessive, dysregulated pro-inflammatory immune response driven by high interferon-gamma (IFNγ) levels and deficient interleukin-10 (IL-10), which persists well beyond spirochetal clearance [4]. The identification of autoantigens such as endothelial cell growth factor and the role of molecular mimicry in cross-reactive T-cell and autoantibody responses have provided mechanistic substrates for this phenomenon [4,5]. Singh and Girschick, in their seminal review, noted that long-term exposure of the host immune system to spirochetal compounds may induce chronic autoimmune disease, with HLA-DR4 and HLA-DR2 serving as markers of susceptibility—a finding with direct parallels to rheumatoid arthritis [6].

A 2021 case series and literature review by Grygiel-Górniak and colleagues documented cases in which Lyme borreliosis triggered systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) de novo, while a broader 2024 review by Krawczuk and colleagues catalogued overlap syndromes between Lyme and SLE, dermatomyositis, localized scleroderma, and systemic sclerosis—underscoring the clinical difficulty of differentiating active borreliosis from primary autoimmune disease [7,8].

Spirochetal Persistence and Biofilm Formation

A cornerstone of the Phillips clinical model—and the broader ILADS-aligned perspective—is that B. burgdorferi can persist in host tissues despite standard antibiotic therapy, largely through morphological pleomorphism (round bodies, L-forms) and biofilm-like aggregate formation [9,10]. Sapi and colleagues demonstrated in vitro that while standard Lyme antibiotics (doxycycline, amoxicillin) reduced spirochetal forms by 85–90%, they reduced biofilm-like colonies by only 30–55%, with viable organisms detectable in 70–85% of residual colonies [11]. More recent genomic studies of B. afzelii and B. garinii biofilms have confirmed minimum biofilm inhibitory concentrations (MBICs) up to 64-fold higher than minimum inhibitory concentrations (MICs) for ceftriaxone and doxycycline [12].

Cabello and colleagues, writing in mBio, have provided a comprehensive review of borrelial antimicrobial tolerance and persistence, noting that tolerance can arise from antigenic variation, colonization of immunologically privileged sites, biofilm formation, and subversion of host immune responses—mechanisms that can operate singly or in concert [13]. Feng and Zhang’s mouse model demonstrated that persistent infection established by stationary-phase microcolonies could not be eradicated by doxycycline, ceftriaxone, or vancomycin alone or in two-drug combinations, but required a three-drug persister-targeting regimen (daptomycin + doxycycline + ceftriaxone) [14].

This body of evidence provides a biological rationale for the combination and pulsed antibiotic protocols that Phillips and other ILADS-affiliated clinicians employ, although it must be noted that the translation of in vitro and murine findings to human clinical outcomes remains an area of active investigation and legitimate scientific debate.

Diagnostic Limitations of Current Serological Testing

Phillips has consistently argued that standard Lyme serologies have limited sensitivity, particularly in early and chronic disease, and that an overreliance on serology leads to significant under-diagnosis. The peer-reviewed literature largely corroborates this concern, albeit with important nuances.

A 2016 systematic review and meta-analysis by Waddell and colleagues, encompassing 48 North American studies, found that two-tier testing sensitivity for stage 1 (early localized) Lyme disease was highly variable and often poor, with a dramatic increase in sensitivity only with disease progression to later stages [15]. Branda and colleagues evaluated modified two-tiered testing (MTTT) protocols and found that while MTTT improved sensitivity in early disease compared to standard two-tier testing (STTT), sensitivity for acute erythema migrans ranged from 49–65% depending on the assay used [16]. A 2024 real-world comparison of 66,708 MTTT and 66,708 STTT results found that MTTT identified nearly twice as many positives in adults (odds ratio 1.88) [17].

Moulinier and colleagues, reporting on a case of persistent borreliosis, attributed false-negative serological results to deficient antibody production secondary to Borrelia-induced immunosuppression, noting a persistent Th1 response with deficient Th2 humoral immunity [18]. This immunological mechanism, if operative in a meaningful proportion of chronically infected patients, would have profound implications for the diagnostic reliability of antibody-based testing.

Phillips’s clinical emphasis on integrating exposure history, symptom clusters, and treatment response into the diagnostic process—rather than relying solely on serological testing—aligns with the ILADS guideline recommendation that diagnosis remain fundamentally clinical [19].

Clinical Approach: Combination and Pulsed Antibiotic Therapy

The Phillips model advocates for several departures from the IDSA/AAN/ACR 2020 guideline framework [20]:

Early aggressive treatment of high-risk tick bites and early Lyme disease. Phillips favors multi-drug regimens and longer treatment durations over the IDSA-recommended single-dose doxycycline prophylaxis (200 mg once) or 10–21-day monotherapy courses. ILADS guidelines recommend 4–6 weeks of antibiotic therapy for erythema migrans, citing treatment failure rates of 15–48% with shorter regimens [19].

Combination and pulsed protocols for established disease. Drawing on the tuberculosis paradigm of multi-drug therapy for persistent infections, Phillips employs combination antibiotics targeting different morphological forms of the spirochete (planktonic, round body, biofilm), with pulsed scheduling (cycling on and off) to exploit bacterial re-entry into growth phases. Horowitz’s published data on dapsone combination therapy—including pulsed high-dose protocols—have demonstrated approximately 50% long-term remission rates in treatment-refractory patients [21,22].

Therapy duration guided by clinical response. Rather than fixed short courses, treatment length is individualized based on symptom resolution and relapse patterns, with close monitoring for Jarisch–Herxheimer reactions as markers of microbial die-off. This approach acknowledges the heterogeneity of disease presentation and the variable responses observed in clinical practice.

The Guideline Tension: IDSA/AAN/ACR vs. ILADS

The divergence between the IDSA and ILADS positions on chronic Lyme disease remains one of the most polarized debates in contemporary medicine. The IDSA/AAN/ACR 2020 guidelines explicitly recommend against prolonged antibiotic therapy for chronic subjective symptoms, citing lack of proven efficacy and the risk of serious adverse events including catheter-related sepsis, thromboembolism, and drug hypersensitivity [20]. Phillips aligns firmly with the ILADS position, which emphasizes that the existing controlled trials of prolonged antibiotic therapy used flawed study designs, inadequate treatment regimens, and insensitive outcome measures [19].

It is important for the integrative clinician to recognize that both guideline bodies have produced GRADE-rated evidence assessments, and that the disagreement reflects genuine uncertainty in the evidence base rather than a simple dichotomy of good science versus bad. The ILADS panel explicitly acknowledges that when evidence quality is low or very low and trade-offs between risks and benefits are value-dependent, the GRADE system recommends presenting a range of therapeutic options rather than a single directive [19].

Relevance for Integrative and Functional Medicine

For the integrative or functional medicine practitioner, the Phillips/“Lyme+” model offers several clinically useful frameworks:

First, it provides a synthesis of the growing literature linking chronic infection to autoimmune and neuropsychiatric disease, framed in a manner accessible to both clinicians and patients. The model encourages clinicians to consider occult infection as part of the differential diagnosis in patients with treatment-refractory autoimmune, rheumatologic, and neuropsychiatric presentations—particularly when there is a relevant exposure history.

Second, the emphasis on biofilm biology and persister-cell pharmacology has direct implications for integrative approaches. The recognition that standard antibiotics may be insufficient against non-replicating morphological variants opens a conceptual and therapeutic space for adjunctive strategies—including biofilm-disrupting agents, immune-modulating botanicals, and low-dose naltrexone (LDN)—that can complement targeted anti-infective therapy.

Third, Phillips’s attention to the Jarisch–Herxheimer reaction and the trauma of medical misdiagnosis speaks directly to the patient experience that integrative practitioners often encounter: individuals who have spent years in diagnostic limbo, dismissed by conventional medicine, and seeking a coherent explanatory model for their illness.

Conclusion

The “Lyme+” model articulated by Steven Phillips, MD represents a clinically provocative and increasingly evidence-informed challenge to the conventional framing of Lyme disease as a self-limited infection adequately addressed by short-course monotherapy. The peer-reviewed literature on borrelial persistence, biofilm-mediated antibiotic tolerance, infection-triggered autoimmunity, and the sensitivity limitations of standard serological testing provides substantial—if not yet definitive—support for many of its core tenets.

For the integrative clinician, this model is most productively understood not as a dogmatic alternative to conventional guidelines, but as an evidence-based expansion of the diagnostic and therapeutic landscape for patients with complex, chronic, multisystem illness. Rigorous, adequately powered clinical trials evaluating combination and persister-targeting regimens remain urgently needed. In the interim, clinical decisions must be individualized, risk-aware, and grounded in shared decision-making with fully informed patients.

References

1. Kugeler KJ, Schwartz AM, Delorey MJ, Mead PS, Hinckley AF. Estimating the frequency of Lyme disease diagnoses, United States, 2010–2018. Emerg Infect Dis. 2021;27(2):616–619. doi:10.3201/eid2702.202731
2. Cabello FC, Embers ME, Newman SA, Godfrey HP. Borreliella burgdorferi antimicrobial-tolerant persistence in Lyme disease and posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes. mBio. 2022;13(3):e03440-21. doi:10.1128/mbio.03440-21
3. Phillips S, Parish D. Chronic: The Hidden Cause of the Autoimmune Pandemic and How to Get Healthy Again. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt; 2020.
4. Steere AC, Strle F, Wormser GP, et al. Lyme arthritis: linking infection, inflammation and autoimmunity. Nat Rev Rheumatol. 2021;17(8):449–461. doi:10.1038/s41584-021-00648-5 [PMID: 34226730]
5. Bolz DD, Weis JJ. Molecular mimicry to Borrelia burgdorferi: pathway to autoimmunity? Autoimmunity. 2004;37(5):387–392. doi:10.1080/08916930410001713098 [PMID: 15621562]
6. Singh SK, Girschick HJ. Lyme borreliosis: from infection to autoimmunity. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2004;10(7):598–614. doi:10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.00895.x [PMID: 15214872]
7. Grygiel-Górniak B, Dura M, Czaplicka A, Aleksandrowicz K, Borysewicz-Lewicka M, Puszczewicz M. Lyme borreliosis as a trigger for autoimmune disease. Cureus. 2021;13(10):e18732. doi:10.7759/cureus.18732 [PMID: 34786243]
8. Krawczuk K, Czupryna P, Pancewicz S, et al. Borrelia burgdorferi and autoimmune mechanisms: implications for mimicry, misdiagnosis, and mismanagement in Lyme disease and autoimmune disorders. Microorganisms. 2024;12(9):1913. doi:10.3390/microorganisms12091913
9. Rudenko N, Golovchenko M, Kybicova K, Vancova M. Metamorphoses of Lyme disease spirochetes: phenomenon of Borrelia persisters. Parasit Vectors. 2019;12(1):237. doi:10.1186/s13071-019-3495-7
10. Miklossy J, Kasas S, Zurn AD, McCall S, Yu S, McGeer PL. Persisting atypical and cystic forms of Borrelia burgdorferi and local inflammation in Lyme neuroborreliosis. J Neuroinflammation. 2008;5:40. doi:10.1186/1742-2094-5-40
11. Sapi E, Kaur N, Anyanwu S, et al. Evaluation of in-vitro antibiotic susceptibility of different morphological forms of Borrelia burgdorferi. Infect Drug Resist. 2011;4:97–113. doi:10.2147/IDR.S19201 [PMID: 21753890]
12. Kowalczyk M, et al. Genomic characterization and antibiotic susceptibility of biofilm-forming Borrelia afzelii and Borrelia garinii from patients with erythema migrans. Front Cell Infect Microbiol. 2025;15:1619660. doi:10.3389/fcimb.2025.1619660
13. Cabello FC, Embers ME, Newman SA, Godfrey HP. Borreliella burgdorferi antimicrobial-tolerant persistence in Lyme disease and posttreatment Lyme disease syndromes. mBio. 2022;13(3):e03440-21. doi:10.1128/mbio.03440-21
14. Feng J, Shi W, Zhang S, Sullivan D, Auwaerter PG, Zhang Y. Stationary phase persister/biofilm microcolony of Borrelia burgdorferi causes more severe disease in a mouse model of Lyme arthritis: implications for understanding persistence, PTLDS, and treatment failure. Discov Med. 2019;27(148):125–138. [PMID: 30946803]
15. Waddell LA, Greig J, Mascarenhas M, Harding S, Lindsay R, Ogden N. The accuracy of diagnostic tests for Lyme disease in humans, a systematic review and meta-analysis of North American research. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168613. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0168613
16. Branda JA, Strle K, Nigrovic LE, et al. Evaluation of modified 2-tiered serodiagnostic testing algorithms for early Lyme disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2017;64(8):1074–1080. doi:10.1093/cid/cix043
17. Chen Z, Venkat K, et al. Real-world Lyme disease testing results using modified vs standard two-tier test protocols. PLoS One. 2025. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0320574
18. Moulinier C. The persistent Lyme disease: “true chronic Lyme disease” rather than “post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome.” J Glob Infect Dis. 2018;10(3):170–171. doi:10.4103/jgid.jgid_152_17
19. Cameron DJ, Johnson LB, Maloney EL. Evidence assessments and guideline recommendations in Lyme disease: the clinical management of known tick bites, erythema migrans rashes and persistent disease. Expert Rev Anti Infect Ther. 2014;12(9):1103–1135. doi:10.1586/14787210.2014.940900 [PMID: 25077519]
20. Lantos PM, Rumbaugh J, Bockenstedt LK, et al. Clinical practice guidelines by the Infectious Diseases Society of America (IDSA), American Academy of Neurology (AAN), and American College of Rheumatology (ACR): 2020 guidelines for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of Lyme disease. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(1):e1–e48. doi:10.1093/cid/ciaa1215
21. Horowitz RI, Freeman PR. Efficacy of short-term high dose pulsed dapsone combination therapy in the treatment of chronic Lyme disease/post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome (PTLDS) and associated co-infections: a report of three cases and literature review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(7):912. doi:10.3390/antibiotics11070912 [PMID: 35884166]
22. Horowitz RI, Freeman PR. Combining double-dose and high-dose pulsed dapsone combination therapy for chronic Lyme disease/post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome and co-infections, including Bartonella: a report of 3 cases and a literature review. Antibiotics (Basel). 2024;13(5):397. doi:10.3390/antibiotics13050397 [PMID: 38792737]

© 2026 Yoon Hang “John” Kim, MD, MPH • Direct Integrative Care

This article may be shared for educational purposes with proper attribution. It may not be reproduced for commercial use without written permission.