that we do what's best for Wisconsin.
Merrifield, thanks very much.
>> In other news, with spring starting earlier and
warmer weather lingering deeper into the fall, the
tick season is expanding. Wisconsin is already a hot
spot for ticks in the U.S. second in the nation after
some locations on the East Coast. And with the deer
tick prevalent across the state, cases of Lyme
disease are also on the rise, spiking already this
month ahead of last year and 2024 marked a record of
nearly 2500 Lyme disease cases in Wisconsin. Could
that be surpassed this year? Researchers at Gundersen
Medical Foundation are staying on top of the
disease. Doctor Eric Sabin leads the research there,
and he joins us now. Thanks for being here, doctor.
>> Happy to do it. >> How alarming is it that
the tick population is growing. And with it cases
of Lyme disease. >> Well I think that it's
it's not going away. And I think that as a disease in
our region, I think we should get pretty
that it's a threat that will probably become more
common over time, especially when you figure
in changes to weather and how often people are
outside doing outdoor recreation. It seems like a
thing that's going to be with us going into the
future. >> And so what should
people do about that? I know that you have said
that, you know, prevention is better than a cure. So
what's the best prevention here?
>> Generally speaking, be aware that if you're going
outside and you're going to be in a place where ticks
might be, we know that if you remove these things
from you before they've had a chance to attach for too
long, the transmission risk of Lyme disease is very,
very low or negligible. So we recommend people be very
vigilant to that sort of thing before they once they
come back in from a recreational outing.
>> If you do a contract Lyme disease, is there a
cure for it? >> There are exceptional
treatments. We've been using antibiotics for a
very, very long time. Yes, people can be cured, but
it's a pretty serious illness and a lot of folks
and certainly has no no limits on its ability to
produce misery and those who get it. But yes, we can
usually treat people very effectively, especially if
we catch the disease early. >> So what are some of the
worst symptoms of it? >> The ones that patients
have told me are the most disturbing are the ones
that involve the joints. And I've had patients that
have very significant problems with their
mobility and very significant joint pain
going into months, sometimes almost a year.
And for people who are otherwise real active or at
a real active phase in their life, it can it can
significantly disrupt their, major degree.
>> So does it matter if it is diagnosed and treated
early versus later? >> The way that the disease
operates is that it produces inflammatory
reactions in the human body that that have a tendency
to progress, change, and worsen over the course of
time if the infection is not treated. Generally
speaking, it's better if you take care of it sooner
rather than later. Lots of the cases don't get
recognized until weeks or even months have elapsed,
and at that point, the symptoms have oftentimes
been much more dramatic. But generally speaking,
it's a good idea to try to get antibiotic treatment
for people very soon, and they have a tendency not to
then progress into the real serious joint or cardiac or
neurological complications after that.
>> How would you know that that you had it early?
>> Well, there are certainly tests that we can
use. A lot of things in medicine depend on clinical
context. And so the it starts with somebody
seeking care and bringing up the idea that they may
have been outside or may have had tick bites or may
have been exposed to ticks. And then it relies on the
part of the health care provider to recognize that
it's in our area. And it has a pretty diverse array
of presentations. And so you combine, you know, the
right place at the right time kind of risk factor
profile with the person presenting with the right
And at that instance, you know, you take action, you
can give people treatment. A lot of times you can
prevent things from getting much worse.
>> So has research developed good tests to
diagnose Lyme disease? >> I'm biased. I think that
the testing can work and can be effective in some
circumstances, but it has a lot of limits by virtue of
how it works. Most of the present testing is based on
immunological reactions through a process we call
serology. And there are pros and cons to that.
Those tests have advantages and that they can show us
immunological reactivity and recognition, but they
also can be very difficult to interpret. They don't
behave, so to speak, the way that a lot of other
serological tests do, because it's a strange
disease and we don't really have tests that I think are
colloquially as well understood as something
like a pregnancy test. A pregnancy test doesn't
leave much doubt about what the result means. The
problem with Lyme disease testing in current use is,
is that it's just simply not that straightforward.
In a lot of cases, it can be ambiguous.
>> And so in that instance, if the results are
ambiguous, should a patient ask to be treated anyway.
>> I would suggest that any patient have an individual
discussion with their provider and make some
decision making on what makes sense for the risk
benefit. Pros and cons you know scenario. You should
always be forthright with your doctors about what you
know you think is going on. And health care
practitioners should be attentive and mindful of
what patients might have experienced in medical
school. They told me, you can't diagnose what you
don't think of. And a lot of times things that are
not being considered are diagnoses that can get
missed or delayed. >> Well, thank you for
doing that work, doctor doing that work, doctor