Letter to the Editor: Clarification on Dis-Ease


Clarification:  “From ‘Dis-Ease’ to Better Health: A Model for Recovering from Chronic Lyme Disease, Mold Illness, and Related Conditions”

Subscribe button

In the “Letter from the Publisher” in the July 2022 Townsend Letter, the publisher made the statement: “Forsgren’s model would argue against immediate treatment with antibiotics unless they are absolutely indicated.”

I would like to clarify that this statement is not entirely consistent with my belief or a perspective shared in the article itself.

What was shared is that there are many foundational steps that I would explore before incorporating antimicrobials.  This, however, was not intended to be a statement against pharmaceutical antibiotics as part of Step 9 in some cases.

In cases of acute exposure, antibiotics are often an appropriate tool that may prevent years of struggle if the acute exposure turns into chronic Lyme disease.  This is a scenario where I would personally consider both antibiotics and natural tools.

In cases of chronic Lyme disease, which was the focus of the article, a broad toolbox is necessary.  Thus, while I may not personally consider antibiotics as the top tool in the toolbox, there are cases where these may be supportive and beneficial.

When I originally was diagnosed in 2005, the commonly used tools were antibiotics.  I was on daily antibiotics for over three years at that time.  While I did make some improvement, these were not the entire solution to my problem as many of the other areas outlined in the article required further exploration.  

If I were starting over, I would approach my recovery differently; using the steps outlined in the article.  I no longer think that long-term antibiotics are a primary tool given the many options we now have available.  That said, shorter, more targeted use of antibiotics may benefit some patients.


In Better Health,

Scott Forsgren, FDN-P, HHP