From what I can gather, the "old reliable" non-alternative ELISA test is about the most unreliable of all. If so, shouldn't that be labeled "dodgy" as well? I received 3-4 false negatives from the standard ELISA test over a period of many years which were almost assuredly incorrect. As far as I know, it continues to be the "standard", with most doctors simply not knowing how unreliable it truly is. That's why it's always necessary to make a clinical evaluation. From Mayo Clinic's website: My own understanding is that just because a person gets bit by a tick and develops a "distinctive" rash does not necessarily confirm that they have or should be treated for Lyme. A rash can occur without an actual infection. Also, as I understand it, Lyme diagnosis is as much an art as a science. Both conventional doctors and alternative minded doctors, with their differing preferences for certain kinds of tests, are most likely going to get it right at times and get it wrong at other times. Some practitioners, just like people in general, are more interested in accuracy than others, regardless of their own personal orientation.