Talk:Chronic Lyme disease

Balance of page and WP:UNDUE
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_muchcuriosity (talk) 18:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * 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_muchcuriosity (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @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 of today, the Cohens' web page for "Lyme and tickborne diseases" says "Over $102 million to 60+ projects since 2015."
 * ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @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_muchcuriosity (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As of today, the Cohens' web page for "Lyme and tickborne diseases" says "Over $102 million to 60+ projects since 2015."
 * ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @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_muchcuriosity (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * ScienceFlyer (talk) 22:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @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_muchcuriosity (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * @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_muchcuriosity (talk) 13:18, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Treatment harms" section
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)
 * This sounds interesting. Go for it. -- Valjean (talk) ( PING me ) 22:41, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * 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_muchcuriosity (talk) 13:19, 20 May 2024 (UTC)