I can agree with all of this. I think it's also important to differentiate between the sensitivity of two tiered Elisa/immunoblot testing in early and late stage lyme. The sensitivity of testing in the early weeks of illness is quite pathetic, but often reaches 100% in later stage lyme with arthritic symptoms,which can only take a matter of months. With the complexity of reading and interpreting the IgG and IgM responses beyond the average patient (me), the quality of your diagnosis and treatment will in large part depend on the quality of your physcian. There are at least some loosely established guidelines in reading these IgG, IgM bands. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18532885 http://jcm.asm.org/content/33/2/419.long http://informahealthcare.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07853890500431934 http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/2/188 As to the effectiveness of newer tests i have no idea. They may turn out to be more accurate than Elisa/Immunoblot. They are not 'alternative' in the batik tie-dyed, incense burning sense. They have science behind them. But as Esther rightly points out, they do not yet have the validity of evidence that the Elisa/Western immunoblot testing has. C6 peptide Elisa http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-0691.2004.01041.x/full http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23592827 Oxoid-IDEIA http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24072766 N.B My opinions on borrelia testing are formed by googling.