It's unfortunate, but people who look for information on the internet can generally find a variety of opinions, Lyme is no different. As to taking on Wikipedia to try and right this wrong, I guess we could but it's a question of what you want to spend your time doing. Edit wars and e-penis contests aren't my favorite.
http://MindToMatter.org
On Jul 20, 2012 5:48 PM, "Adam Levine" <adamlevinemobile@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> That's a problem with Wikipedia, it's become a very entrenched culture in places. Don't take it personally.
>That's disgusting, what can we do? We've got enough people who know when a citation is needed or when scientific bias is happening.we shouldn't stand idle
>
--
> Adam B. Levine
> http://MindToMatter.org
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Phil <philgoetz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, 18 July 2012 16:14:39 UTC-4, Gavin Scott wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, July 18, 2012 1:41:41 PM UTC-5, Phil wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Okay, let me try to respond to this in a non-angry way.
>>>
>>>
>>> You can be angry if you like; you have a much bigger stake in the issue than I do :)
>>
>>
>> What I'm angrier about is the Lyme Disease Wikipedia page.
>> It has three sections on chronic Lyme disease. These are all written with
>> a very biased viewpoint, putting "chronic" in quotes, claiming that belief in
>> chronic Lyme is a "minority" opinion "not recognized by mainstream medicine"
>> that only a "small number" of doctors hold, and that "most insurance" will not
>> pay for continued treatment of Lyme. In reality, most doctors who have Lyme
>> patients use continued treatment; the only doctors I've met who follow the IDSA
>> guidelines on Lyme are general practitioners who have little experience with it.
>>
>> When I change the biased language to neutral, or write [citation needed]
>> after one of these unsupported claim, my edit is removed as being biased
>> language or as needing a citation!
>>
>> I downloaded the references that are ited in the Wikipedia article to show that
>> there is no such thing as chronic Lyme disease. There's about 10 of them.
>> They were published in different medical journals, and by committes from different
>> organizations, including the IDSA, the American Association of Neurology,
>> the NIH, and the "ad-hoc committee on Lyme disease", whatever that is.
>> And, guess what, it's just the same doctors writing the same stuff over and
>> over! The key three doctors, who are listed as authors on every original
>> source and were on every committee, are Shapiro, Wormser, and Halperin.
>>
>> I corrected some of the most-biased language, and added text pointing
>> out that all of the citations used to claim that chronic Lyme denial is a
>> broad medical consensus are actually written by the same people.
>> Two anonymous Wikipedia editors, "Novangelis" and "Mast cell",
>> revert my corrections minutes after I make them, citing Wikipedia
>> guidelines that fail to apply as justifications. When I pointed out that
>> all of the arguments against the existence of chronic Lyme are made
>> by the same people, Novangelis retracted this as "not being neutral
>> point of view". I restored it, and "Mast Cell" retracted it as
>> "inappropriate synthesis". (I listed 8 different citations and observed
>> they were all by the same authors. Mast Cell calls this "inappropriate
>> synthesis" because none of the articles themselves mention the fact
>> that they are all written by the same authors).
>>
>> Additionally, Novangelis is the same Wiki editor who retracts
>> edits from the Aspartame page that are not biased in favor
>> of aspartame! I became acquainted with the aspartame controversy
>> about 2 years ago, when I wrote a proposal to study the effects
>> of gut microbes on the safety of artificial sweeteners. I found
>> that the approval process was highly influenced by lobbyists;
>> the articles cited by governmental bodies to claim
>> that aspartame is safe were written (often without
>> any conflict-of-interest notification) by staff scientists of the
>> companies producing aspartame; opposing studies were
>> simply ignored by the regulatory agencies. ALL of the reviews
>> of the aspartame literature cited by regulatory agencies were
>> written by staff scientists for chemical companies.
>> Reading the reviews, they were heavily biased, taking
>> studies showing safety uncritically, but coming up with
>> convoluted counter-arguments against each study that
>> did not show safety, or simply ignoring those more difficult
>> to dismiss.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/diybio/-/pe5MHZINgg0J.
>>
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
> To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to diybio+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment