User:Bob the goodwin



I am a medical patient and have done heavy personal research in various areas particularly neurology, Sleep apnea, POCD, genetics, ADHD, urology, and lyme disease. I hope to help make wiki pages more complete for future patients who are facing some of the same issues. The Lyme conflict in particular is difficult because treating doctors are often reluctant to treat patients because of the ongoing controversy's. After reviewing lots of literature I am not sure who is right, and am becoming happy simply to know the facts.

If I have an agenda, it is that some of these controversy's are harmful to treating doctors and patients, and believe that Wikipedia and its value system is the right response to hot debates that effect everyone. So I only seek to have wikipedia represent the best information that exists in the medical literature and broader issues related to seeking medical care in these difficult fields. I appreciate any feedback on how to get my voice appropriate to Wikipedia.

I am still undecided if long term treatment of chronic Lyme disease is a fringe medical position
Serious people in mainstream medicine have hinted my symptoms are consistent with post treatment Lyme disease. Those same people have said the Lyme War has the profession on the defensive. I have intellectually put effort into strongly taking both positions. I have researched other medical controversy's. I have concluded this controversy is unique. I have also concluded that it has another characteristic of an active war: nobody has a neutral position. Everyone is taking sides. I am still waiting for convincing evidence on either side, until then I am pulling back and just investigating the war itself.

Invitation for Wikipedia evidence that the long term treatment of Lyme disease is fringe

 * The arguments that are visible:
 * The consensus is that long term treatment is not effective, manipulates vulnerable patients, and is potentially dangerous.
 * People with chronic illnesses are attracted to a diagnosis that is broad, non-specific, and has a doctor willing to treat.
 * The minority position is based on pseudo-science.
 * A subculture of well intentioned doctors has created confirmation bias
 * A subculture of patient advocates have used government and PR to undermine science (similar to what happened in chiropractic and homeopathy)
 * The minority is disrupting debate and has harmed science and medicine.


 * Holes in the argument (given available RS)
 * The consensus seems to be built around a closed group of academics that use confirmation bias Groupthink
 * They require of the minority a reverse burden of proof
 * Dismissal of minority opinion is based on Anecdotal evidence
 * Their theories are not Falsifiable
 * Assertion that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa Argument from ignorance
 * Attacks on minority Science by press_conference and Ad Hominem fallacy, lack of freedom in science research.
 * Use of guilt by association to state that the science is bad because of the actions of patient advocates.
 * Suppression of dissent by suppressing publication of science and by attempting to prosecute 50 doctors
 * Use of secrecy
 * Use of misleading language "Post Lyme Syndrome"
 * Failure to progress towards additional evidence of its claims Absence of progress

Invitation for Wikipedia evidence that the long term treatment of Lyme disease is a significant minority opinion

 * The arguments that are visible:
 * There are prominent adherents to the minority position (Burgdorfer, Fallon, possibly late IDSA fellow Waisbren)
 * There is lots of published RSMED that proves that chronic Lyme exists, and that Lyme disease is undertreated.
 * Except there is a circular argument: fringe views cannot be RSMED, so absent RSMED this research is fringe.
 * The clinical diagnosis of Chronic Lyme disease is imperfect, but as useful as other chronic disease diagnosis.
 * There is significant (but minority) support for the position within academia and general medicine.
 * There is capture of the decision making bodies of medical science.
 * Sick people are being cured.


 * Holes in the argument (given available RS)
 * Science by press conference is driven by hundreds of patient advocacy groups
 * Significant quackery by a minority within the minority
 * Confirmation Bias
 * Their theories are not Falsifiable
 * Argument by Anecdotal evidence and Personal experience
 * groupthink
 * Use of misleading language "Chronic Lyme Disease"
 * Ad Hominem fallacy
 * Lack of effective controls, such as placebo and double-blind, in experimental design
 * Use of legislation for protection (by patient advocates)
 * Accusations of corruption against the consensus medical organization do not seem to be provable.
 * Accusation of suppression of science do not seem to be provable.