Disclaimer first. I am nt a medic, my degree is in biology and I'm currently studying sports science. Ticks rae something I've looked at in some detail because I do a lot of walking in places where ticks are common.
Reserving judgement here because that film is clearly made from a particular biased viewpoint. I don't like using that sort of thing as a source for information, I prefer to go look at the scientific research. Lyme is very much a problem in some areas, however there is a huge amount of pseudo-science and scaremongering out there and any presentation that is emotionally manipulative is suspect.
I listened to the discussion panel as well and was unhappy about the doctor's attitude. "I see many cases of Lyme" but he doesn't use the tests, just assumes that if someone is bitten by a tick that they have Lyme. Then he later says that when he treats prophylactically he doesn't see cases of Lyme, however since he cannot know in the first place whether someone is infected that statement is meaningless.
I'm aware that the tests are not accurate but not using them at all allows him to make unprovable claims about the number of cases that he sees. Then he prescribes on a prophylactic basis an antibiotic that has a collection of potentially unpleasant side effects, not because there is evidence that it is the best but because he likes it. If he was genuinely interested in dealing with Lyme disease he would not be using his unscientific methods that are based purely on personal opinion.
