@Hip , Bioelectric therapy sounds interesting. I know I have heard of it or something similar. Patients with Lyme who find that conventional abx fail them, frequently end up searching for unorthodox therapy aids. Some of those alternatives may be good; some may be not so good.
One of the peculiarities of Lymeland is the vehemence with which alternative meds/therapies are attacked by the rank and file of mainstream Lyme. This willingness - or desperation? - to embrace solutions outside of those defined in the IDSA Guidelines is frequently characterized as unequivocal signs of foolhardiness or instability. The patients who use these therapies are labeled "Lymenuts", the clinicians who recommend or administer them, quacks or charlatans or mercenary fraudsters.
There may be an element of truth to that in some cases. But just as often, if not more so, the efforts are genuine responses to a market need. A caveat emptor proviso applies, though, because some alternatives haven't been proven, or may even be dangerous.
The problem is, patients have little recourse. There is no movement on the treatment research front. Treatment research is on hold. What research is being done is almost solely on acute diagnostics, or on producing a new vaccine.
If you live in the US, or one of the many other countries which subscribe to treatment protocol rooted in IDSA dogma, and your Borrelia infection is not cured by conventional therapy, as a rule, you have no fall back solution, no treatment of last resort. If you are fortunate, your clinician may recommend a second round (this is highly unusual), or even a third - but then you have to have your insurance carrier approve the treatment, and that's not likely to happen.
The reason for this is the general rule of thumb that Lyme will be virtually always curable by treatment as defined in the IDSA Guidelines. Worse, once you have been treated with IDSA-recommended therapy, you no longer qualify as having Lyme. This is true regardless of subsequent diagnostics. Following treatments, irrespective of symptoms or diagnostics, all patients with persistent symptoms are now said to be sick with PTLDS. Antibiotics are not only not recommended for PTLDS, they are discouraged. Not only are antibiotics discouraged, but within the guidelines the authors actually list alternative therapies that should be avoided as not one of these therapies has been approved by, well, you guessed it, the IDSA authors who defined the
only therapy is their rigid, er, selection.
Purveyors of alternative solutions are openly criticized, maybe even sanctioned. Patients who turn to them out of desperation are ridiculed or condemned.
So, any one who continues with a Bb infection after conventional therapy is pretty much out of luck.
Moreover, you can see this bias segue out of the deep patient trenches and up into research efforts - as in you will not find any research into new treatments for Lyme. This Lewis/Zhang offspring was an oddity. This freakish occurrence was greeted almost universally throughout Lymeland with celebration; not just for a new treatment approach, but because it got a known member of the Old Guard to sign on the dotted line that spirochetes may in fact survive conventional treatments.
Still, at the end of the day, and for the foreseeable future, you can pretty much rest assured that any alternatives not blessed with a seal of approval by the IDSA, will be revealed as folly, and jettisoned from acceptable medical society.