A battle between sloppy journalism and sloppy medicine?

www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/midtvest/jaeger-fik-borrelia-men-ingen-diagnose-efter-flaat-bid

This absurd article from Danmarks Radio casually declares that a man is infected by Borrelia despite four negative ELISA immune tests. It paints a picture that the man is breaking news, leaving out the connection to the international lyme scandal, as well as the important question of how he ended up receiving his diagnosis.

But apparently this man was saved by the system after four negative tests. Now I'm thoroughly confused. I thought the establishment denied this illness. My doctor certainly did so. And usually when journalists seek answers, they ask one of the few 'experts' who are powerful enough to dictate the entire system in Denmark. I have seen several news stories where the only sources were Ram Dessau (clinical associate professor, working group behind the danish guidelines) and Sigurdur Skarphédinsson (of OUH, clinical associate professor).

Will the press now casually start to use random citizens as sources, without declaring that there's more to the story, and an outrageous injustice and deception behind what the system has preached for decades? Now a citizen simply and suddenly 'has borrelia' and we just move on from that? What the f***, are you kidding me? What about me? What about his apparent illness, how can anyone deny him ongoing treatment if the ELISA test is an unreliable test of whether the infection is still present? Then your only imperative as a doctor is to treat for as long as either yourself or the patient believes the infection persists. And this route was what norwegian doctor Rolf Luneng took, and he lost his license by doing this, by acknowleding that the test is basing the treatment on guesswork, just like his personal assessment involves guesswork/risk. Either the risk is with the patient and his doctor, or the risk is with some weird test that no one really trusts. Make your pick. But don't let the journalists confuse you, because apparently they just cite anecdotes carelessly.

The article ignores context or technical details, and gives the useless impression that this one man was an isolated incident, which is a disgraceful disservice to ill people who deserve facts, at the very least.

What tests did the man take?
For what infections?
What will the consequences be for those doctors who failed him and avoided some complex work?