Comment on What science needs

Wed, 05 Dec 2012 21:01:50 GMT

Look at the history page and see what I tried to change. The page originally had "chronic lyme disease" in quotes, implying that it did not exist. "Most medical authorities advise against long-term antibiotic treatment" has 3 citations, but all of them refer to statements by the same small group of doctors, who have consistently masqueraded as "most medical authorities" here and in journal articles. The following statements say that chronic Lyme does not exist, but again all the citations are to the writings of that same small group of doctors. The article dismissing the fact that animal studies always find antibiotics do not eliminate Borrelia was also written by those same doctors. Then the page says, "Major US medical authorities, including the Infectious Diseases Society of America, the American Academy of Neurology, and the National Institutes of Health, have stated there is no convincing evidence that Borrelia is involved in the various symptoms classed as chronic Lyme disease, and advise against long-term antibiotic treatment as ineffective and possibly harmful." The four citations given again refer only to the writings of and panels led by that small group of doctors. The statement that "Prolonged antibiotic therapy presents significant risks and can have dangerous side effects" is not supported in the Lyme literature; the risks are associated with intravenous therapy, while most patients have oral medication, and the risks of taking the antibiotics are less than the risks of not taking them.

Then we come to the "Controversy and politics section". It says,

The evidence-based perspective is exemplified by a 2007 review in The New England Journal of Medicine, which noted the diagnosis of chronic Lyme disease is used by a few physicians despite a lack of "reproducible or convincing scientific evidence", leading the authors to describe this diagnosis as "the latest in a series of syndromes that have been postulated in an attempt to attribute medically unexplained symptoms to particular infections."[221] Most medical authorities agree with this viewpoint: the IDSA, the American Academy of Neurology, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the NIH advise against long-term antibiotic treatment for chronic Lyme disease, given the lack of supporting evidence and the potential toxicities. [83][222][223] AGAIN, all four citations are to the works of this small activist group of doctors (Wormser, Shapiro, Halperin, Johnson, and Feder). The other doctors who deny the existence of chronic Lyme are Steere and Auwaerter, but they don't co-author with Wormser et al.

When I modified the page to add a statement pointing out that every one of those citations and all of the authorities cited to claim that there is no chronic Lyme disease trace back to these five doctors, my statement was twice redacted, on the grounds that I was violating Wikipedia policy by combining information from multiple sources in a way that is not present in any of the sources. That is, because no one of the papers says that all of the papers were written by the same people, I was not allowed to point out that all of the papers were written by the same people!

"A minority view holds that chronic Lyme disease is responsible for a range of unexplained symptoms, sometimes in people without any evidence of past infection." -- I doubt that this is a minority view among doctors familiar with Lyme. Citation needed.

"as to argue for insurance coverage of long-term antibiotic therapy, which most insurers deny, as it is at odds with the guidelines of major medical organizations" - no citation to indicate that most insurers deny long-term antibiotic therapy, and I don't think this is true anymore. Blue Cross & Blue Shield allows it.

The section on the IDSA guidelines antitrust investigation is not false, but is remarkably pro-IDSA considering the findings of the investigation, which were that the panel was rigged and the science was bad.

"A 2004 study in The Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal stated 9 of 19 Internet websites surveyed contained what were described as major inaccuracies. Websites described as providing inaccurate information included several with the word "lyme" in their domain name (e.g. lymenet.org), as well as the website of the International Lyme And Associated Diseases Society" - citation is to an article by Feder.

"A 2008 article in The New England Journal of Medicine argued media coverage of chronic Lyme disease ignored scientific evidence in favor of anecdotes and testimonials" - citation to article by Feder & Johnson.

In conclusion, there are no citations in the entire Wikipedia article to claims that chronic Lyme does not exist, except to papers co-authored by or panels led by Wormser, Feder, Halperin, and Shapiro; and I was not allowed to point that out.

Discuss