I believe those are different from the submitted article. The submitted article interviews a man who was never diagnosed or treated for Lyme disease until 20 years after he contracted it. After he was treated, his symptoms went away. (Except for his heart issues, which were permanent because over the course of the disease, his heart had developed significant scar tissue.)
Those studies are about people who have been diagnosed, treated, and then continue to experience symptoms. The background from the first paper:
It is controversial whether prolonged antibiotic treatment is effective for patients in whom symptoms persist after the recommended antibiotic treatment for acute Lyme disease.
Lyme disease is real and uncontroversial. What is controversial is that if there is such a thing as a chronic Lyme disease that persists after the initial antibiotic treatment. The current scientific evidence is against such a thing.
Those studies are about people who have been diagnosed, treated, and then continue to experience symptoms. The background from the first paper:
It is controversial whether prolonged antibiotic treatment is effective for patients in whom symptoms persist after the recommended antibiotic treatment for acute Lyme disease.
Lyme disease is real and uncontroversial. What is controversial is that if there is such a thing as a chronic Lyme disease that persists after the initial antibiotic treatment. The current scientific evidence is against such a thing.