That was the point of my post though. Its a moving target. First it was diabetes. Then hypo/hyperglycemia. Then hypo/hyperglycemia when it manifests in ways that aren't understood. Etc

This, to me, sounds like more of the same. First lymes wasn't known. Then it was identified, but chronic lyme is a mental disorder. Eventually, given enough study, chronic lyme will be understood, and then people who don't fit into that paradigm will be the ones with 'mental disorders'. Its a moving goalpost.

I'm not trying to invalidate a lot of smart research in the area. I'm saying that when medical science doesn't know enough about an issue to truly identify and treat it, by the nature of the way science works (step 1 is identifying the problem, and likely that hasn't even been done yet) medical practitioners can't do anything about it in good faith. So they'll suggest you find remediation as best you can, perhaps with therapy to help. Or else you're stuck looking for a specialist in your area, or a less-mainstream doctor who's willing to bend rules and provide home remedies with your symptoms, neither of which the medical profession can ethically suggest to you.

Look at it another way: in order for something to be studied, enough people have to get it to create a statistical sample size, and a large enough sample set to be potentially profitable or worth researching. That means, by definition, there are plenty of people out there with ailments that haven't crossed that threshold yet. Or, even more likely, there are plenty of people out there with problems, but due to the unknown nature of the problem, they haven't been successfully grouped together for study yet, even if they are over the threshold. Who's to say chronic lymes doesn't fit into those categories? Lymes itself is still a relatively new ailment.