This is not a documentary. A documentary suggests journalism. There's not much in the way of journalism here, nothing you might call objective, detached, skeptical inquisition. The New York Times refered to Under Our Skin as a polemic, and that's exactly it. Wilson's targets are the doctors and research scientists who say there is no evidence that Lyme disease is chronic and who believe that long-course antibiotic treatments have not been proven effective in arresting the disease and making its victims healthy again. The film sets out to discredit the Infectious Diseases Society of America, which has declared that chronic Lyme disease does not exist. Wilson's claim that the doctors who wrote the IDSA's treatment guidelines for Lyme have conflicts of interest is just that -- a claim, and the charge is not effectively supported. Under Our Skin is full of suspicions, assertions and anecdotes; it's low on science and objectivity. That doesn't work -- in fact, borders on irresponsible -- when you're telling a medical story.