Hmmm...Roz, I guess my point was not that Lyme is the EASIEST thing to diagnose, but relative to RSD, that there are tests (admittingly no test is perfect) to detect it, i.e., ELISA and Western blot, as well as others, to give a reasonable suspicion of it's existence. This is after a high clinical suspicion from the history related by the patient of where they have been and if possible, the benefit of clinically seeing a bull-eye rash that is evident in 3/4 of the cases.

Perhaps a case in point is, name 2 tests that objectively diagnose, without an index of suspicion, RSD. There aren't any. Doesn't mean we all do not have it!

The dilema lies in the timing of whether or not the Lyme patient presents in clinic early at the time of the rash, and the sensitivity of labs if the patient is lucky enough to have a presumptive diagnosis in which to order them! And treatment-wise, most people with Lyme disease respond well to antibiotic therapy and recover fully. Better than an RSD prognosis, to be sure!

I do not disagree at all with you that it is very serious, obviously I lost a very dear friend, or that is much more complicated in an RSD patient. Only that it has potentially greater options for treatment if diagnosed early, as compared to RSD.