Billy Kelleher (Cork North Central, Fianna Fail) | Oireachtas source

Okay. I will ask a few questions.

Why are there such disparities between the varying views held? I refer, for example, to the view within traditional medical science on testing for Lyme disease. Why is there not a more uniform opinion on the efficiency of the serologies of the western blot and ELISA test methods? Is there still a doubt within traditional medicine about people contracting Lyme disease? We often hear claims about chronic Lyme disease, for example. We understand the initial testing will identify the pathogens. Many people have longer term concerns about the chronic Lyme disease element.

According to people who have contracted Lyme disease, there is a lack of understanding of their plight within traditional medicine. Why is that the case? In the light of all the advances in microbiology and testing, why have we not reached a point at which we can definitively identify whether there is such a thing as chronic Lyme disease? I have met many patients, some of whom have appeared before the committee, who say they have met a huge well of resistance. They often have to travel to Germany for tests. Why is that the case? Do the delegates have any view on this?

On the broader issue, we have heard that of the 1,000 samples taken, approximately 30 were confirmed. Why is the test carried out in the microbiology unit not as accurate as it should be? What are the real reasons for this? Reference was made to the use of lumbar puncture to take samples. What is the most common method of taking samples to be assessed and analysed for Lyme disease?

I will leave it at that because other members will have questions, too.