Jump to content

Talk:Chronic Lyme disease

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sthatdc (talk | contribs) at 01:03, 15 December 2019 (→"Advancing fringe POV": new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Disputed edits

User:Sthatdc has been making edits to this article that have been disputed by User:JzG and User:Alexbrn. For some reason none of those editors has seen fit to create a section here, where it belongs, to discuss this issue, although they all seem perfectly capable of editing Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, so I am creating it for you. Please discuss the issue here rather than edit warring. There is no loss of face involved in being the one to start a discussion here: quite the reverse. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Sthatdc could say what they're trying to do. I'm seeing weakening of WP:V and removal of information from the lede here[1]. What is the rationale for this edit? Alexbrn (talk) 19:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since he refuses to say what his problem is, other than to claim it is somehow "obvious", I think we can safely ignore this until he explains his issue. Guy (help!) 23:03, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I'll start, since nobody else wants to go first. User:Sthatdc, you removed the word harmful, as in of the treatments provided by people outside the scientific mainstream, "the most controversial and harmful is long-term antibiotic therapy, particularly intravenous antibiotics". Why did you remove this? For example, do you think that there are even more harmful therapies in reasonably common use, or that it is a harmless treatment? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The word "harmful" seems to be well supported by the sources, but I'm not sure about the word "most". Both of the sources cited for this sentence only appear to look at antibiotic use, and not other proposed treatments, so they do not support any comparison. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Taking another look I'm not sure about the word "controversial" either. Is there actually any controversy about this or are all reliable sources in agreement that this treatment doesn't work, and is actually harmful? Phil Bridger (talk) 12:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, I'd say those were good points. This source from Science-Based Medicine addresses this topic, citing this relevant paper from AMMI Canada. Alexbrn (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Something can be "controversial" even when the scientific facts are clear. There's a general meaning of the term that is more like "people are yelling past each other". See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy : dispute, quarrel, strife. You can be wrong and still engage in all of that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You are right about that - I tend to be over-pedantic with word meanings. I would still stand by my questioning of "most", however. The sources make it clear that this is the treatment most commonly prescribed by those who believe that these symptoms are related to lyme disease, but don't preclude there being an even more controversial and harmful treatment offered. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:14, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Phil Bridger, it's the primary reason behind the passage of laws specifically shielding "Lyme literate" doctors from discipline for using dangerous quack treatments. As so often with quacks, they get patients to lobby for laws that prevent regulatory bodies from addressing their malpractice. It's called "legislative alchemy" - the process whereby you can turn lead into gold by passing a law saying that lead is a form of gold. Guy (help!) 17:10, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    "possibly the most controversial and harmful" is unverifiable speculation. "one of the most controversial" is a statement that can be verified. Intravenous antibiotics are mentioned in the lead but not in the article anyway, which does not make sense. Who administers intravenous antibiotics except medical professionals? I do not believe medical professionals administer treatments which they know to be harmful. If I interpreted that sentence wrongly, make it clearer. Sthatdc (talk) 00:17, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Sthatdc, it's the one that has led to attempts to discipline "Lyme literate" doctors, and for which legislative alchemy has been invoked. Guy (help!) 00:49, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • And why say chronic lyme has "symptoms similar to those of Lyme disease" when the cited source (and many others) make the point that chronic lyme has a huge number of symptoms, many of which are not specific to real lyme disease? Alexbrn (talk) 10:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Improving this article

Just started some initial efforts to improve the pages chronic Lyme disease and (riddled-with-fringe-citations) Multiple chemical sensitivity. My edits were reverted, but there seems to be some sort of misunderstanding, because all edits were above board. Please review the changes again. The effort was to remove redundant or irrelevant info and citations to WP:FRINGE group ILADS. For example, combined three mentions of fibromyalgia into one mention and removed the FM-wars reference, which just cites Feder. Also added citations to Feder, Barbour, and secondary sources citing CDC research that many people diagnosed with "chronic Lyme" have well-defined illnesses (e.g. ALS, cancer, Lupus), not CFS/fibromylagia.

I'd also like to add more about the psychiatric comorbidity often seen in patients with "chronic Lyme" beliefs, as discussed by Lantos, but not sure of the best way to add it.

Also valuable would be more discussion of the common beliefs in chronic Lyme groups, for example the discredited beliefs in multiple chronic coinfections. ScienceFlyer (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The misunderstanding is your own. Your edits were not "above board" as you have stated above. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 11:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COPYPASTE

You may not copy and paste text from a source, and present it in the voice of the encyclopaedia. You may not do this even if you indicate where you copied and pasted it from. Wikipedia is a free encyclopaedia, which means you must write your own text, which you license freely. You may quote a source verbatim if the exact words need to be reproduced. So, a first sentence which includes a large chunk of copied and pasted text presented in the voice of the encyclopaedia is not valid. I fixed that. Sthatdc (talk) 00:12, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you say. Now please provide the source, and show that it's not a reverse-copyvio (a site that copied from us). Guy (help!) 00:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have completely misunderstood the situation. You think a review article in the New England Journal of Medicine plagiarised Wikipedia, and therefore it's OK for Wikipedia to plagiarise them? Sthatdc (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sthatdc, See above. Please identify the source of the supposed copyright violation. You removed text cited to multiple sources. Copyright is not a magic talisman, you have to show the actual source and that it is not de minimis. Guy (help!) 00:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to have changed tack, but again, you have completely misunderstood. The text was clearly copied and pasted from a source and presented in the voice of the encyclopaedia. Are you denying that? Sthatdc (talk) 00:54, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Advancing fringe POV"

User:JzG reverted my edits numerous times and explicitly refused to explain why he was doing so. Now he has given a reason, but it's quite the personal attack. Will he explain exactly what POV he thinks I have? Sthatdc (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chronic_Lyme_disease&oldid=930799992"