In a judgment dated April 16, 2025 (ref. V SA/Wa 2779/24), the Provincial Administrative Court in Warsaw ruled that the Patient Ombudsman's decision to ban the "pulse method" for treating Lyme disease was justified. The method implies the use of long-term antibiotic therapy, even though it is not supported by clinical studies.
- Although current medical knowledge indicates what are the correct and desirable ways to fight the tick-borne disease Lyme disease, many times patients are prescribed therapies that are not only ineffective, but above all harmful to the body. Wanting to protect patients, their health, I am taking action in this direction, and subsequent court rulings indicate that these actions are right," says Bartlomiej Chmielowiec, Patient Ombudsman.
"The Pulse Method" is another controversial therapy after the ILADS method, which has raised concerns among patient protection authorities. ILADS also provided for prolonged, often multi-drug antibiotic therapies without support in scientific evidence.
In justifying his decision, the Patient Ombudsman recalled that according to the Code of Medical Ethics, a doctor has a duty to choose forms of therapy based on efficacy, safety and patient welfare.
Medical experts took a similar position. The provincial consultant in infectious diseases considered the "pulse method" to be "amateurish and not recommended by any competent scientific and clinical centers." In turn, the national consultant in the field wrote in his opinion:
I take a negative view of the use of the 'ILADS method' in the treatment of Lyme disease. This method is overused and leads to chronic and combined use of antibiotics with abandonment of the search for other causes (including non-specific) of symptoms often by people without specialization in infectious diseases, which poses a significant risk to patients and population-wise in terms of antibiotic resistance selection and therefore should not be used.
The administrative court shared the arguments presented by the Patient Ombudsman, finding that:
There are no randomized, double-blind clinical trials to confirm the efficacy and safety of long-term antibiotic use in the treatment of symptomatic Lyme disease, much less asymptomatic Lyme disease.
The verbal recitals of the judgment emphasized that current medical knowledge is an objective criterion that cannot be undermined by individual patient experience.
The court's decision is another step toward cleaning up medical practices around Lyme disease and protecting patients from therapies that are not based on scientific facts.
Source: MPC
