We could not disagree more with the inaccurate statements made by Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal in his opinion piece on our Lyme disease guidelines ("Conflicts of interest in treatment guidelines," July 19).

The physicians and scientists who wrote the Infectious Disease Society of America's (ISDA) guidelines thoroughly reviewed all the medical evidence and took great care to address the claims made by the small minority of physicians who advocate long-term antibiotic use. Their conclusion, based on several peer-reviewed studies, was that long-term antibiotics are unnecessary and potentially harmful.

The notion that the authors had financial conflicts of interest is absurd to anyone who has read the guidelines, which recommend generic tests and a short course of generic drugs. If the authors were seeking to profit financially, it would have made more sense for them to recommend a lengthy course of treatment and a broader definition of the disease.

Ironically, Mr. Blumenthal and those who criticize IDSA guidelines would increase profits for pharmaceutical companies and revenues for physicians who treat Lyme disease. Mr. Blumenthal's investigation of IDSA ended without filing any legal complaint, and the agreement (not a settlement) that he signed stipulated that IDSA guidelines remain in place. The agreement called for a special review, which is currently under way.

IDSA's signing the agreement was not, as he alleges, an admission of guilt, but an effort to end a fruitless investigation that was costing our organization (and presumably Connecticut taxpayers) thousands of dollars. We hope the review will put to rest the tired old allegations and put the focus where it belongs: making sure that people with Lyme disease get treatment that is safe, effective, and supported by sound medical evidence.

Editor's note: The writer, a physician, is president of the Infectious Diseases Society of America.