Contents

Talk:Chronic Lyme disease

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chronic Lyme disease article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 60 days

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chronic Lyme disease. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chronic Lyme disease at the Reference desk.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about various personal beliefs about Lyme disease. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about various personal beliefs about Lyme disease at the Reference desk.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles Skepticism Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Chronic Lyme disease. PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles) The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine. Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

The current page takes a strong stance against the label "Chronic Lyme Disease". This is understandable given current medical guidelines. However, there needs to be room to address the points of view of patient advocates and researchers reassessing it's status.

What I believe is incontrovertible:

• "Chronic Lyme" is not recognized by practitioners and researchers.
• There is little evidence to support the use of antibiotics as treatment.
• People claim to have the disease despite never receiving a Lyme disease diagnosis.

Let's discuss what other content is appropriate to be included. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There has been some guidance by Dyanega already in edit summaries, but what you're running into issues with here when you talk about "balancing" an article is WP:FALSEBALANCE. Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view, fringe theory, or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. If specific research has moved from minority view to mainstream that can be discussed, but there are some underlying fundamentals people often misunderstand when it comes to what is considered WP:DUE in medical topics. KoA (talk) 18:32, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the guidelines. And, most of the time I err on the side of caution with WP:DUE, preferring to exclude rather than include info. Perhaps "balance" is the wrong word for what I'm trying to describe, since I'm not at all trying to balance the page with bogus claims. Rather, I guess I'm trying make the page more "humble", since the current page has a slightly dismissive tone.

I do think it's important to note a change in attitudes among researchers. Fibromyalgia used to be thought of as an affective disorder, but is now treated as one of unknown biological origin. The Time article I included in my edits quotes researchers reexamining it through a similar lens.

I do not believe my previous edits assigned undue weight to a minority view since they clearly stated the medical consensus. Is there anything in my edits that should be excluded? Why? I think I'd find a more detailed discussion to be helpful. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Toomuchcuriosity Thanks for your comments and suggestions.

I don't think the Time piece is reliable, and it should not be used to support "a change in attitudes among researchers".

The Time article mostly quotes or links to researchers who are funded by CLD advocates. The article does not disclose the conflicts of interest. The article photographer (who seems to be essentially a co-author) is a CLD patient. It seems to me that a major development is the money going to some academic researchers from CLD advocates. These researchers are then promoted in the media, including by university press offices. Sources:

As with other antiscience groups, some Lyme disease activists have created a parallel universe of pseudoscientific practitioners, research, publications, and meetings, arranged public protests and made accusations of corruption and conspiracy, used harassment and occasional death threats, and advocated legislative efforts to subvert evidence-based medicine and peer-reviewed science. Politicians, the media, and the public have been left trying to discern the scientific facts from the pseudoscientific ones, with many regarding both as equally valid as they try to be fair and balanced. When such inappropriate and uncritical weighting occurs, public and government officials unknowingly come to accept or even endorse highly unconventional and sometimes dangerous theories and therapies.
— Auwaerter, et al, 2011

In some cases, even clinicians who’ve harmed patients end up being defended by vocal, organized, and well-funded networks. Groups such as the Global Lyme Alliance and the Bay Area Lyme Foundation are flush with cash; the hedge fund manager Steven Cohen, whose wife, Alexandra, has persistent Lyme symptoms, has given more than $50 million toward related groups since 2015. They also boast celebrity allies such as Justin Bieber and Avril Lavigne, both of whom received Lyme diagnoses and have shared details of their alternative treatment protocols.
— Bloomberg, 2020

Steve Cohen, the hedge-fund billionaire purported to have inspired Billions, has committed more than $60 million to Lyme and tick-borne-disease causes. His wife, Alexandra, is a chronic-Lyme patient. Several universities that pursue research topics friendly to the chronic-Lyme cause — such as Columbia and Tulane — are among the recipients of his largesse.
— New York Magazine, 2019

As of today, the Cohens' web page for "Lyme and tickborne diseases" says "Over $102 million to 60+ projects since 2015."

A new center at Columbia University will open this summer to patients. The Cohen Center for Health & Recovery from Tick-Borne Diseases has been established through a $16M grant from the Steven & Alexandra Cohen Foundation to Columbia. [...] Dr. Fallon is also Director of the Columbia Lyme & Tick-Borne Diseases Research center, which was established in 2008 by the Lyme Disease Association Inc. and Time for Lyme (now GLA).
— CLD advocacy group Lyme Disease Association, 2021

One San Francisco Bay Area family decided to make a search for a cure for chronic Lyme disease their personal mission after all four members of their family tested positive for Lyme and co-infection diseases. Aiming to prevent others from enduring a similarly painful chronic health trauma and to shed light on the complex disease and encourage further investment in research, Emily and Malcolm Fairbairn have made a $2.14 million gift to the MIT School of Engineering to fund a two-year research project examining a physiomimetic analysis of acute and chronic Lyme disease.
— MIT press office, 2020

[Emily Fairbairn's] $2 million gift to Iwasaki’s research toward Long COVID and finding a cure for chronic Lyme disease stems from both a personal and altruistic mission. Her daughter was diagnosed with chronic Lyme disease while a student at Harvard. That diagnosis led Fairbairn to uncover the source of her own years of physical suffering. In fact, they learned that her entire family, including their dog, was grappling with chronic Lyme.
— Yale School of Medicine press office, 2023

ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ScienceFlyer I really appreciate you taking the time to explain the issues with the article. Based on that info, I agree that it should be excluded. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to create a new "Treatment harms" section with new and existing material. I've been accumulating references, which might be useful: There is a newer review article describing treatment harms, as well as an older review of dozens of "unorthodox" treatments". This suggestion is semi-related to the edits proposed by @Toomuchcuriosity which cites an unreliable Time magazine article that promotes dangerous bee venom therapy. (I agree with mentioning treatment delay in the article body.)

• The well-established side effects of antibiotics.

• Bee venom therapy can result in anaphylaxis and death. (ref)

• Ozone treatments have been associated with complications, including death. (Ref 1, ref 2)

• Use of disulfiram has caused toxicities and a death (ref 1 authored by French CLD advocates, ref 2, ref 3)

• Harms to children (ref 1, ref 2, ref 3, )
• Older treatments like malaria and bismacine

I'm not sure how this would best be presented stylistically but maybe it's a good idea to just start it and see how it evolves. ScienceFlyer (talk) 21:09, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This sounds interesting. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I read the bee venom therapy as a marker of desperation for finding working treatments, and I feel silly not thinking about how it can be misconstrued by others... I just feel the need to explain that my goal is not to promote bogus, and hope that my edits are assumed to be made in WP:Good Faith. _{too_much} curiosity (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]