LymeHQ · Resource directory

Who else is out there

Advocacy organisations, government programmes, professional societies, research centres, laboratories, apps, educational material and financial assistance — described by what each one does, in alphabetical order, with no ranking of any kind. Including the tools that do what we do.

42 organisations across 10 categories, alphabetical within each, described by what each one does. Orientation, not endorsement — an entry is here because the organisation exists and does something specific in this field, never because we agree with it and never because it agrees with us. Nothing is ranked, scored or recommended. The rule that decides what gets listed is below the directory, in full.

Each entry carries the date a person last read it against the organisation’s own public material. That date is not a link check and not an edit date. It is an attestation, and it is printed because nothing here can derive whether a description is still true: a funding programme can close or a body can wind down without a line of our code changing. A date on a screen makes going stale visible instead of silent.

If you want to understand how these organisations relate to each other rather than look one up, where the data goes draws the channels a patient’s record travels down and asks what comes back.

01 · The directory

Filter it, or read it straight through

Alphabetical within each category. The only thing the filters do is remove rows.

Showing all 42 entries

Every entry checked 2026-08-30

Government bodies and programmes

Professional societies

Advocacy organisations

Registries and biobanks

Research centres

Testing laboratories

Apps and tools

Educational resources

Financial assistance

Veterinary and One Health

02 · What gets listed

The rule, so no entry is a judgement call

This field has an active clinical disagreement running through it. A directory that lists both sides needs a stated criterion, or it is just our preferences with a search box.

An organisation is listed when all three of these hold:

  1. 1

    It is a named body with a stable public address of its own.

    Not an individual, not a page inside somebody else’s site, not a project whose address no longer answers.

  2. 2

    It has a specific function in tick-borne disease.

    It holds data, publishes guidance, funds work, runs a service or a community, or sits somewhere a patient will be routed. If nobody in this field would ever pass through it, it is not part of this field’s map.

  3. 3

    That function can be stated in one sentence, verified from its own public material.

    Every description here was written by reading the organisation’s own site, not from memory. Two candidates were dropped during the build because their pages would not confirm what we were about to write about them.

What the entries do and do not say

Where we have a relationship with an organisation, its entry says so. Where we do not, its entry says nothing — because a “no relationship” badge on forty entries is noise that trains you straight past the two that matter. Every declared relationship carries a proof our own checks resolve against the code.

And the part that actually decides the hard cases

A position is never a criterion. Not for listing, not for leaving off, not for ordering. Two societies that disagree about how this illness should be diagnosed and treated are listed the same way, in the same category, in the same alphabetical order, each described by what it does. Where the disagreement is itself the relevant fact, an entry says that a body publishes guidelines — a statement about documents, which is checkable — and never which guideline is right. Nothing on this page tells you who to believe.

Including the ones that compete with us

Two of the entries under Apps and tools are symptom trackers, which is a thing LymeHQ also is. They are here because they meet the rule above, and leaving them off would be an exclusion on grounds of position — the rule broken by us first, on our own page, in our own favour. A platform that needs people to stay is a platform that cannot be a map.

03 · What is not here

The deliberate absences

A directory implies completeness. These are the things it does not cover, and the reason for each.

  • Individual clinicians and practices

    Naming a clinician is a much stronger claim than naming an organisation, and it is not made here. It is made on the clinician directory, which has its own verification mechanism and its own record of who checked what. Several organisations listed above run their own referral lists, and their entries say so.

  • Peer communities on Reddit, Facebook and Discord

    They are a real and load-bearing part of this field, and for many people they are the first place anyone believed them. They are not listed individually because they change hands, they have no identifiable operator, and a link we cannot keep current is worse than no link at all. Organisations above that run moderated communities and support groups are listed, and their entries say so.

  • Anything we could not verify

    Two candidates were dropped while this page was being built, and both are worth stating rather than quietly omitting. One is a long-standing advocacy organisation whose site would not respond, and whose remaining public traces suggest it is winding down — we could confirm neither that it is operating nor that it has closed, and either sentence would have been a guess. The other is a research app whose former address now serves unrelated commercial content, which is exactly the failure a link we had not opened would have shipped.

  • Which specific tests are FDA-cleared

    Some tests offered by the laboratories above are cleared by the FDA; others are laboratory-developed tests offered under CLIA. That distinction changes how a test is regulated and how a plan treats it, and it is a per-test fact that changes over time — we have not verified it test by test, so no entry here implies an answer. It is a reasonable question to put to a laboratory directly, and to your plan.

If something here is wrong

A description that has gone out of date, a programme that has closed, an organisation that belongs here and is not — those are all worth telling us about, and the address on the privacy page reaches a person. Being listed here is not something anyone applied for, and being removed is not a judgement about the organisation.