"Any testing which claims, etc..." Nope, that won't cut it. It isn't good enough.
Here is why: The proponents of that B31 strain - and its purported symptoms' cluster - theoretically can maintain that diagnostics that appear sensitive to that single strain apply to all Lyme strains and manifestations. How can that be? In part, because little serious research is being conducted to distinguish strain pathogenicity these days.
Moreover, some of the same researchers who seem to have a fondness for limiting symptoms and strains, are currently in control of most major medical governing bodies relative to Lyme. They get to define which symptoms fit a Lyme diagnosis. Symptoms that they deem unworthy, might fall by the wayside, while those that satisfy their perspective, get embraced.
Let's not forget, too, that thresholds for positive vs negative interpretations are governed by the same select group, as they have been for two decades. The implications are that even for that single strain, B31, infected individuals can be exempt from an accurate diagnosis.
The scary point is that some researchers are arguably in a position where they simply could insist on their definition, and their diagnostic solutions - the very situation I think you objected to earlier.
All testing needs to subscribe to the same basic tenets and protocols throughout the entire test validation process. Any group or company or individual who deviates from good Science anywhere along the way should be exempt form serious consideration.
Period.
