Somewhat unlike giardiasis, tick bites may indeed be a particular concern for backpackers. But I would hardly give it a second thought.

I can offer only a few objective facts.

Subjectively, I can tell you I 've been thrashing around in the bushes in Connecticut and the Northeast for many years, and never to my knowledge have been bitten by a tick. I've observed many hundreds of ticks and pulled them out of several peoples' skin, none of whom got Lyme disease.

My best friend has been a "tree surgeon" in Connecticut for decades. He's wading through brush constantly and never gotten the diesease.

Once, somewhat recently, I saw a fellow who seemed obviously to have the "bullseye" symptom, and appeared to be infected with Lyme disease.

Turning to objective stuff, I've seen highly credible reports about research that suggest a remarkably low likelihood that a given tick even carries the disease; that the tick must feed for at least 24 hours before transmission occurs, and that there is a very high rate of over-diagnosis.

As of a number of years ago, the simple test was highly inaccurate, and the accurate test was highly expensive, so apparently doctors barely bothered.

Also, that the large majority of the supposed cases of Lyme disease that don't respond to a short course of anti-biotics are found to have been mis-diagnosed, and typically aren't in fact Lyme disease at all.

Not to say it isn't a potentially nasty diesease. Given the choice, I'd take giardiasis in a second.

I can't give links on this stuff without some work. If anybody wants, maybe I can review the stuff. Mostly my source has been the New York Times, which has free archives.

There is definitely a small group of people that are hysterical about this topic. They are remarkably hostile to mainline medical researchers. They are mostly "patient activists," and are perhaps a bit nuts. But they have been fairly effective in spreading their views.