Your "Good summary" is in a journal that's pretty far from what I'd call reputable. The PLOS One article on Rhesus monkeys isn't terribly definitive either - it's a big step between persisting in a host and capable of producing disease without manifesting any laboratory detectable presence.
To jump from "This might be a cause" to "Lets treat people with long term courses of antibiotics, which have known and often severe side effects" is a pretty serious leap in logic.
And I know very few clinicians who would tell someone who believes they're suffering from "Chronic Lyme" that they're not sick. Just that they're not sick in this particular way. Non-specific, widespread inflammatory disease is something the medical community is still struggling to figure out. But antibiotics are fairly nasty drugs for "We have no way of diagnosing this, fleeting evidence for a causal link, and no population-level studies."
Would you agree that a medical journal's impact factor is more important for new research than a summary? I would think that for a summary the quantity and quality of the references is a bigger factor.
As far as the clinicians, having a lot of family experience with the disease, I've seen things far differently. This in addition to support groups, phone calls, etc. We're not going to get anywhere debating experience, just letting you know that it happens a lot.
Honestly no - for a review article, I generally prefer journals with a better reputation. Not necessarily based on Impact Factor, but I'd much rather rely on a non-systematic review from JAMA, Lancet ID, JID, JAMA or PLOS Medicine. Or any one of a number of specialty or society level journals.
I'd rather not rely on an article from an OA factory that's spammy enough for people to wonder if its a scam journal. For a systematic review or meta-analysis I might let it slide, but this was an opinion-y "Review of the Evidence". The somewhat wide ranging stuff the author writes on makes me a little skittish as well.
I'm sorry to hear of your family's experience. I occasionally have my own issues with clinicians.
To jump from "This might be a cause" to "Lets treat people with long term courses of antibiotics, which have known and often severe side effects" is a pretty serious leap in logic.
And I know very few clinicians who would tell someone who believes they're suffering from "Chronic Lyme" that they're not sick. Just that they're not sick in this particular way. Non-specific, widespread inflammatory disease is something the medical community is still struggling to figure out. But antibiotics are fairly nasty drugs for "We have no way of diagnosing this, fleeting evidence for a causal link, and no population-level studies."