I know that the quackery around CFS makes things difficult, and how it can be that having a diagnosis like Chronic Lyme can serve to make an unreasonable society treat one better, but that doesn't mean that my pointing out that there is no evidence to support the validity of 'alternative' Lyme testing is in any way disparaging to you as an individual. I certainly do not mean it to be, and if we were speaking face to face I am sure that I could easily make that clear to you. There really isn't any good evidence for the validity of this testing though, and this is a problem that all patients considering paying for this testing should be made aware of. CLIA certification does not require that labs provide evidence of the validity or reliability of the individual tests which they provide. There is a possibility that even dodgy testing can serve to provide false explanations that make it easier for patients to interact with an unreasonable society, and that openly and publicly criticising these tests could make life worse for some patients. I think that in the long-run it's always best for us to try to be as honest and clear with one another as is possible though. Throughout this discussion I've always thought of you, and responded to you, as an equal, and as another patient who is interested in the truth. By looking carefully at the evidence, I think that we can help one another be more reasonable. If you are aware of any good evidence to support the 'alternative' Lyme claims, then let us know what it is. If you don't think that there is good evidence for these claims, but want to give alternative Lyme treatment a go anyway, because you don't think it's much of a risk, then that's your decision, but I do think that it's important to try to be clear when talking about this that there really is no good evidence to support the alternative Lyme theories, or it could end up leading other people astray. Some people do seem to think that the alternative Lyme approaches are supported by good scientific evidence, and this can mean that they make decisions which they come to regret, or would not have made had they been properly informed. A real problem I have with the biopsychosocial approaches that were promoted to me was the disinterest in informed consent, the exaggerated claims about the evidence, and the false reassurances that were given. I think that this was really quite nasty quackery. It has left me really committed to the notion that patients should be properly informed before they undertake any medical intervention. (Sorry if this was a bit rambling).