The Red Ring

Many critics of this documentary argue that it lacks impartiality on the complex and controversial issue of persistent Lyme disease and therefore amounts to disinformation. However, they seem to miss a crucial point: a documentary is entitled to focus on one side of a debate to highlight that side's arguments and experiences, rather than serving as an endless back-and-forth between competing viewpoints.

In presenting the experiences of those who believe they suffer from persistent Lyme disease and shedding light on their emotional and physical struggles, the documentary does an outstanding job.

More broadly, the documentary highlights the urgent need for the healthcare system to support individuals who have been failed and forgotten-those with complex, poorly understood symptoms that the system struggles to address. Whether their conditions stem from infections, autoimmune responses, psychological factors, or a combination of these, one clear takeaway is that a more open, holistic approach to diagnosis and treatment is essential for meaningful progress.

Discussing a documentary about real people, especially the health and unhealth of real people, is something that should be done with great care. I fully believe that everyone featured in this film is truly suffering in a desperate situation, and my heart goes out to them. The struggles we are shown are undoubtedly real and have an impact on many more people besides the sufferers themselves: families, friends, colleagues etc.

It's clear that the bureaucratic systems of health care have failed them and their families in some way - the situations we get to witness are unfair and untenable.

That said, I don't think chronic lyme disease is a real thing. The film tries to do a good job of convincing the viewer that this is a real illness that is being ignored by Big Pharma, but if you are at all familiar with the complicated relationship of emotional and physical wellbeing, the evidence presented doesn't seem as credible.

Many of the symptoms shown in the film are common in maladies of emotional origin: tiredness, exhaustion, low moods, shaking, vomiting, nausea, lack of appetite etc. These are real and serious symptoms that can absolutely make one's life a living hell, as anyone with severe depression can tell you. But there are lots of mental illnesses that we know to have physical effects, from headaches to hyperventilation to hallucinations. So why do these people feel such a strong need to have a physical cause for their suffering?

The speedy recovery that we get to see (in some cases) is also typical of an illness that is created by the brain. The director seemingly starts to feel better the moment he's told that he is better. The young boy who goes from being unable to walk to walking within two days of starting treatment... yeah I dunno, normally physical cure takes a while to really take effect in the body, and even then the recovery of damaged tissue etc will take some time. The placebo effect, however, has been shown to result in an instantaneous miracle cure, especially in cases where the main hindrance has been psychological.

One question that I returned to throughout the film is this: why don't these people seem at all open to the possibility that their suffering could be related to a mental illness of some sort? I obviously don't have the answer, just speculations. Despite the growing openness about depression and anxiety there is still a lot of strong stigma surrounding mental illness, both in the medical field and outside of it. A phrase that was mentioned a few times in the film, "it's all in your head" is indicative of the dismissing, cruel attitudes that many people have in regards to psychological ailments.

Mental illnesses are still associated with a defective brain, a defective person. There can be a strong sense of judgement that comes alongside a psychological diagnosis: this is your own fault, you could think yourself healthy if you wanted to, you're not really ill. A physical illness can be comforting as it feels more real and tangible: see, I'm genuinely suffering, I haven't made it up! Within that context it's understandable that some people would resist the idea of a mental illness and cling onto a physical one even if there's no scientific evidence for it.

All in all this is a film that is filled with empathy towards those that suffer, but sadly ends up being irresponsible and potentially dangerous. The treatments that the director goes through over the course of the film can be seriously damaging and shouldn't be promoted. The sciency explanations (curiously voiced in English by a vaguely British-sounding man despite the film being Finnish - I can't help but think that in our global consciousness British English is known as The Voice of Knowledge, and that this is a deliberately manipulative choice) are one-sided and misleading, but skillfully shown as perfectly neutral. The film makes an attempt at fairly representing all viewpoints, but the end result is severely skewed.

What was surprisingly positive was the calculation of the full cost of the director's treatments over the years. There is a lot of money moving in these treatment circles, and it's nice that he didn't shy away from telling the numbers plainly.

In the end what I'm left with after watching the film is a feeling that more needs to be done. Hopefully in the future we have a better, less stigmatised view of illnesses that have a psychological origin. As a result of the wellness boom there seems to be a growing perception of connections between the body and the mind, a better understanding of people as one united entity of feelings and body parts. Maybe one day we'll know how to treat the whole person in any kind of illness.