The Romney campaign is sending out a flyer in Northern Virginia pledging to fight Lyme Disease, which is describes as a “massive epidemic threatening Virginia”:

The Washington Post notes that “According to the CDC there are less than 1,000 reported cases of Lyme disease in Virginia a year — in a state of eight million people.”

It’s fairly difficult to contract Lyme disease because “an infected tick must be attached to the skin for at least 36 hours to transmit Lyme bacteria.” For those who are affected, there is a straight-forward and effective treatments for the disease — a course of antibiotics for 2 to 4 weeks.

So what’s the point of this Romney mailer?

A highly influential social conservative in Virginia, Michael Farris, believes that people can contract “chronic Lyme disease” that must be treated with long-term antibiotics. The Center for Disease Control says there is no such thing as “chronic Lyme disease” and “long-term antibiotic treatment for Lyme disease has been associated with serious complications.”

You can read about these complications in this article from “Clinical Infectious Diseases,” the official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America, called “Death from Inappropriate Therapy for Lyme Disease.”

Farris “claims that his wife is a chronic Lyme sufferer as are all his seven children.”

Farris, who has no medical training, was invited to speak with Romney on his campaign bus a couple of weeks ago. Farris said that he and Romney “talked about Lyme disease. It was cordial and encouraging.” Here’s a photo of the meeting from Romney’s Facebook page:

The Romney flier advocates providing “local physicians with protection from lawsuits to ensure they can treat the disease with the aggressive antibiotics that are required.” Farris’ wife receives treatment from “Dr. Joseph Jemsek, who moved his practice to Washington, D.C., after losing his medical license in North Carolina for treating patients with long-term antibiotics.”

Tommy Thompson, the Republican senate candidate in Wisconsin, couldn’t decide if he supports maintaing provisions of the Affordable Care Act, during a debate against challenger Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) on Friday. Responding to a question about health care reform, the former governor and Health and Human Services secretary insisted that the entire law should be gutted, but seconds later admitted that certain provisions “absolutely need to be maintained”:

QUESTION: Governor, just so we’re clear. There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act right now that’s worth maintaining?

THOMPSON: No, no. Right now, the Affordable Care Act has 20 taxes increases. We got to do away with the Affordable Care Act and then we can put in things like making sure that individuals could be covered … But there are things in there like wellness and prevention, Bob, that I drafted when I was Secretary that are in the Affordable Care Act that absolutely need to be maintained. Chronic illnesses is something I started when I was Secretary of Health. That’s got to be maintained and be able to continue.

Watch it:

Thompson’s contradictory views on reform have haunted his campaign. As a lobbyist for health care interests, Thompson “was very helpful in implementation,” to the Obama administration and even urged Republican governors to adopt the law’s health insurance exchanges.

Last April, he lauded Obamacare’s payment reform provisions, saying they give “great discretion” for exermination with “alternative payment systems.” He even tried to dissuade the GOP from repealing the measure, telling CNBC in November 2010, “When it’s all said and done, you’re not going to be able to repeal health care because President Obama is not going to sign it… And they don’t have enough votes to override a veto, so why push a cart uphill when you know it’s not going to be able to get to the top?”

Thompson’s senate campaign website now lists “repealing Obamacare and replacing it with market-based solutions” among his top legislative priorities.

Through federal guidelines set in the Health Hunger-Free Kids Act, the National School Lunch Program is doubling fruits and vegetables, increases whole grains and cuts sodium in school lunches. Critics of the law have seized on new calorie caps for these lunches, pointing to some students’ complaints that they are still hungry during the day. But USDA officials say it’s just part of the adjustment period, and introducing more healthy snacks in school could help students feel more satisfied:

School lunch trays are a bit lighter this year after Congress-approved calorie limits on school lunches went into effect in August. The new regulations, which were championed by First Lady Michelle Obama as part of her “Let’s Move” campaign to fight childhood obesity, have inspired protests and even a video parody from students who claim the reduced lunches are making them go hungry. [...]

[Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom] Vilsack said the Obama Administration is working with school districts to create snack programs and encouraging parents to pack extra food for their active students to munch on before football practice or band rehearsal.

“We understand that change is difficult,” Vilsack said. “Some folks love it, some folks have had questions about it, but that’s to be expected when you’re dealing with 32 million children and you’re dealing with over a hundred thousand school districts.”

On NPR, Jessica Donze Black of Pew Trust’s Kids’ Safe and Healthful Foods Project points out that the 850 calorie cap isn’t actually drastically different from lunches before. “When we look at what students were actually eating on average a couple of years ago, it was around 790 calories in an average lunch.” Even so, the USDA is in the process of releasing new standards for “competitive foods” found in vending machines and school stores, so students will have healthy options for snacks in between meals at school if they feel they are left unsatisfied at lunch.

Studies find that better nutrition, including more fruits and vegetables, actually make people feel fuller. But conservative critics like Rep. Steve King (R-IA) — who calls the new lunch guidelines “the perfect example of what is wrong with government” — misportray these standards as creating a “scant diet,” even though they are actually in compliance with Institute of Medicine recommendations. King’s alternative proposal for limitless calories in school lunches contradicts both the science on good nutrition and reality of high childhood obesity and overweight levels.