Yeah, I realise that's what some of them are trying to do...I really think doctors and scientists (if not the population en masse) need to be taught logic at school. I was just reading through the arguments about the efficiency of two-tiered testing again, and the author pointed out that the con group often use statistics from EM patients, where serology is often negative (because antibodies haven't developed yet) but cultures are often positive. The author then went on to say that the two-tiered testing is 87% sensitive in disseminated Lyme disease, where they point out that cultures are often negative. Unfortunately, they forgot to point out that culture is the gold-standard, and that in the absence of this, one of the standards used is that of the CDC, which requires clinical symptoms and positive serology. So they are evaluating new tests by how well they agree with the existing tests,(and I assume they would evaluate new criteria by how well they agree with the existing criteria).
Does anyone else see a problem with this? How, if such a standard is used, could a test prove to be more sensitive than the existing one? Does that mean that the current tests are infallible? If they are, what's the point in evaluating new tests? This kind of faulty logic seems to be everywhere you look when it comes to Lyme.