The topic was supposed to be Lymes disease. Go to the diagnostics page there is a check list. See how many symptoms you match up with and maybe go to dr to test for Lymes disease
I've been tested, I don't have that or Lupes. It's funny that you brought up this topic as we just found out our 19 year old niece has it. She's on a two month medication treatment. She never found a tick but remembers scratching her hair one day and had a sore afterwards. Then she got hit with major fatigue. That's when her primary ordered blood work and found it.
Never been tested I will have mommy draw the blood Tuesday to see. Even if I don't have Lukes disease, it will not change my opinion of his Gospel, which is awesome IMO.
Properly, it's Lyme Disease, named for the Connecticut town where it was first investigated. --John of Ohio
Those of you wishing to refer to Lyme borreliosis as "Luke's disease" should be aware that the latter has a well established urban definition of its own. I recommend the scientific terminology to avoid any possible embarrassment or confusion. Correct, John. If you have the time & you're interested in the history of Lyme disease, & if I remember correctly, the 5,300-year-old mummy, Ötzi, or the Man from Hauslabjoch, divulged the presence of Borrelia burgdorferi's DNA sequence, rendering said chalcolithic European the earliest known human with Lyme disease. Unless you're suggesting that the existence of disease contradicts, or justifies theists to question the benevolent nature of the Christian God, as claimed by the Christian canon, why would the bacterium, Borrelia burgdorferi, alter one's opinion of The Gospel of Luke, anymore than it would Willy Burgdorfer?