Except in the sense that "every profession is a conspiracy against the laity", nothing about this situation is unique to Lyme Disease. Some time back I went looking for the reason tests for autoimmune problems were scaled back to find fewer cases. It turned out these tests were finding too many people with preclinical disease, for which doctors have no good treatments. This prompted a professional group to reevaluate criteria. The end result was that laboratory tests showing significant autoimmune activity prior to onset of clinical disease were adjusted in sensitivity until the threshold matched clinical judgment based on other signs. Objective tests were adjusted to match clinical opinion. This then worked its way into research criteria. An opportunity to discover what was going on in autoimmune disease at an early stage, when it might be possible to use less-drastic interventions, was thrown away to avoid overloading practicing doctors with information they did not want. This is perverse, unless you realize that the purpose of tests is to bolster the authority of physicians, not reveal errors in judgment.
Looking back at medical history I don't find any break in the tradition that began long ago of saying "this can't be wrong, we've been doing it for centuries." Such thinking allowed diseases like TB to persist without anyone important noticing that treatments were largely ineffective. The outcome was bad for patients, yet provided a steady income for doctors. Every kind of moral, psychological and constitutional failure was attributed to those damned patients, who had not been educated enough to know they were supposed to get better. Fresh air, healthy diet, exercise and positive thinking were long thought to be the answer despite the fact that nearly every sanatorium had its own graveyard. Resistance to the idea that TB was even a communicable disease persisted long after Koch had shown the role of mycobacterium tuberculosis. Koch did receive the Nobel Prize in 1905, 23 years after his research was published. Even then this was controversial. The idea that an immune response to tuberculin, which he also discovered, could be used as a test for TB infection was around from the beginning, (Arthur Conan Doyle, acting as a medical reporter, mentioned it in a dispatch about the discovery,) yet nothing was done about this until a much later date. Screening cattle for mycobacterium bovis, and Pasteurizing milk, could have reduced incidence of human TB, but this did not take place in regions as large as the UK until after a generation of Americans had demonstrated a substantial drop in incidence. There was also a TB vaccine, BCG, which is another story all by itself.
My point in all this history is that unless you produce a "wonder drug" which cures the problem without requiring any new thinking on the part of the doctor, the medical profession will predictably resist efforts to inform them of errors they are making in diagnosis and treatment until the current generation retires.