I've not looked in to any one individual, and have only been stating that IF doctors are saying or doing certain things, then that is dodgy. I don't know what this doctor is doing.
If you haven't looked into a doctor, and you don't know what they are doing or saying, you should not call them "suspicious" especially if you're just lumping them in with a group you don't respect. Period. It's derogatory in nature.
Top specialists according to who? How do you assess which testing is gold standard?
This has all been covered in the Lyme Testing thread.
Please refer back to that thread for further clarification if necessary.
Also, this stemmed from my saying: "There has been a history of people making money from wrongly claiming those with CFS, or CFS like symptoms, have Lyme disease, so that makes me additionally sceptical of a new claim that most CFS patients have Lyme."
OK. I think we already went over that point as well.
Some people with CFS have Lyme; some don't. Who made a claim that most CFS patients have Lyme? If they only have Lyme, they've been misdiagnosed with CFS. That's all that claim said.
Everyone in the healthcare field has a history and is out to make money.
Not sure what the problem is here.
We have previously discussed the evidence showing that IgeneX sold unreliable testing while being a certified lab. Being a certified lab often does not mean much. Equally, board certified doctors can be unreliable, untrustworthy and incompetent.
There is no evidence that the Western Blot testing done by IgeneX is unreliable. None.
It's not perfect, no testing is, but it meets the standards and is the best that we have. That is true of almost every lab test done by every lab anywhere.
Being a certified lab means that they have proven this to the satisfaction of the government.
Selling experimental testing under development is also done by every major lab. It doesn't make Labcorp unreliable nor does it make IgeneX.
If I were a board certified doctor with zero complaints or disciplinary actions and you called me unreliable, untrustworthy, and incompetent in public, you had better have some actual proof, not just your opinion, or we would be meeting in a courtroom with your checkbook.
Also - you'd seemingly just being concerned that I was 'muddying the water' by talking about unreliable testing, despite the fact that this was entirely related to the point I was defending, and now you seem to be saying that it is wrong for me to say that the positive results from these tests were unfounded.
I've never been talking about the unreliable testing, yet you keep bringing them up as examples of why no Lyme testing should be done or treatment should be undertaken. That's muddying the waters.
Let's keep the discussion to the tests that are widely used by the top specialists and validated by the certifying body.
Okay. I still don't really understand what you meant there.
OK? I am not sure what you mean either.