Re: [DIYbio] Re: Anybody working on Lyme Disease?

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.