They want the NHS to provide much more intensive and longer courses of antibiotic treatment, and to do more work to raise awareness of the disease.
Ms Seal has had several long courses of antibiotics after treatment from private doctors and travelling to the US. She is gradually recovering but still has difficulty walking, which she blames on the effects of the disease.
The illness has meant she has been unable to return to her job as an entomologist since her daughter Ruby, now two, was born.
Ms Seal said: "While some people do get better after a short course of antibiotics, others definitely don't. They should stop trying to impose a 30-day limit on treatment which doesn't make sense."
In the US the so-called "Lyme Wars" began with doctors insisting a short course of antibiotics was adequate while patient pressure groups said they needed years of antibiotics.
NHS doctors have said all the evidence from scientific trials indicates prolonged use of antibiotics is of no benefit to Lyme patients, and they warn overuse of anti- biotics can cause sickness, diarrhoea, and liver poisoning, as well as increasing the risk of antibiotic resistant infections developing.
One Scottish Lyme specialist, who did not wish to be named, said the concentration on antibiotic treatment for patients with long-term symptoms after an initial antibiotic course was in itself a problem: "I think it's a distraction from proper patient management which should be more holistic and focus on symptom management including cognital behavioural therapy, exercise, analgesia, and diet where appropriate."
A Scottish Government spokeswoman said: "We continue to work with Health Protection Scotland to raise awareness of the risks of Lyme disease and highlight the importance of preventative measures against tick bites.
"A research symposium on Lyme Borreliosis is taking place in Inverness on May 9 and 10, and we will consider any outcomes from the symposium in how we address Lyme disease in future."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article