What Elena is doing is marvellous. It's also very necessary. Wiki might be the first place that people turn to for info on Lyme. It really is so important to keep up with what's happening there.
I keep wishing I could volunteer to help her, but I am seriously compromised by the neurolyme and just cannot concentrate for long enough to help with the editing. It will take me an hour to write this message, so I am not confident enough to do something as crucial as editing Wiki.
Elena is really struggling at the moment as she is up against 3 of the Steerites; an extra person has suddenly joined in after her appeal to the wiki official.
Perhaps, (and this is just my imagination working overtime perhaps,) someone saw the post by oxygenbabe on here about this official, and gave him a pre-emptive call, getting their point of view across before any of us contacted him. Perhaps the official was over-awed by the power and position of someone like nighthawk j. Who knows, but whatever has happened, it must be of supreme importance for the Steerites to keep changing wiki, so it's of even more importance to us.
Every time Elena removes the bad biased stuff, it gets replaced with the Steerite dogma, such as the EM rash being there 90% of the time. All of the Blumenthal info gets removed, as does the links to bio warfare, despite their legitimate position under the Controversy chapter.
The trouble is, although she has already today re-instated her good edits, within a couple of hours it has been undone. No one is allowed to re-instate or edit more than 3 times in one day, or else they get thrown off Wiki forever. Elena has used up 2 of those 3 daily edits already today.
So can someone with the brainpower to do this please help?
It would be easy in a way, except I can't concentrate when reading all of the stuff to get to the right button etc.
If just a few people volunteered to cover certain times of the day, and learned how to go into Wiki and press the ``revert to previous button'', then it would be an ongoing thing and we could keep a good version going all of the time.
We can't let them get away with this censorship any more. Wiki is supposed to be the People's Encyclopaedia - don't let the furtive and secret Steerites ruin one of the best outlets we have for putting the truth out there.
Best wishes, Andromeda
Posts: 180 | From UK | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Definately, PM me and let me know what to do. I am on the internet enough I can do this.
-------------------- C.D.C = "Country Doesn't Care" Ticks are like Snipers, you don't know they're there, until you see the bullseye. Posts: 86 | From Upstate New York | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd be glad to help but I would need to know exactly what to write and how to edit it.
-------------------- I was diagnosed with and treated for late stage Lyme in 1991 with 6 weeks of doxycycline. Initially felt better, but then developed health problems that last until today. Posts: 83 | From New Jersey | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some wack started a new page "Lyme disease controversy" and filled it with pro IDSA manifesto stuff.
Interesting it seems to be an automated program that gathers data-- that he might tag and writes it to wiki automatically. I would expect that this is something that someone does for money.
He does slam ILADS. I made a few edits but decided to leave it alone.
I find it interesting again why someone would spend so much time trying to deny the existence of cronic lyme.
-------------------- Positive 10 bands WB IGG & IGM + Babesia + Bartonolla and NOW RMSF 3/5/09 all at Quest
posted
Actually the Lyme Disease Controversy page has been up for quite awhile, the IDSA slanted info is new however. So if you Wiki people can do a revert to previous, the old information might still be there? -k
Posts: 205 | From northern california | Registered: Apr 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
HI all, thank you all for offering to help, and thanks Andromeda for copying the thread here (there is a parallel discussion in Medical where I've copied a lot of the debate that's been happening in Wiki so far.)
Today I found that I could not reverse the Steerites' changes nor even add a comment about them to the "Discussion" page, I don't know if the Steerite gang has successfully lobbied the Wikipedia staff to exclude me, or if it's just a technical thing.
I tried to add the comment below on the Discussion page today but the software refuses to accept it. If anyone else can add something similar, that would be helpful. Mast Cell is an obvious Steerite swine who is trying to influence DGG, who is a member of Wikipedia staff, to censor all non-Steerite material.
Anyone wishing to help but needing help with technical issues, etc please p-m me. Thanks. Elena
Excerpt from "Discussion" section of Lyme page on Wikipedia plus my comment which could not be uploaded on 27 June 2008:
==further steps== Mast Cell asked me to have a look, & I generally agree with the edits he's been doing so far. Personally, i would have chosen to integrate the material on the controversy rather than continue it as a separate article, but the other way is justified also. The biowarfare stuff can be dealt with if it turns out there's actually any material. The main remaining thing is to edit some of the medical research material at the end and reduce the number of references--they tend to accumulate unnecessarily because the non-consensus side adds whatever it can find, and the mainstream retaliates in kind. Lead references and key recent reviews are sufficient--but not everyone agrees with my view here, for I'd make this objection to a lot of the biology and medicine articles--I think the referencing of them reflects to much the style of a science graduate textbook, not a general encyclopedia. Great things, good science and medical texttbooks with full referencing, but i dont see what the purpose at Wikipedia. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC) :I'm with you - I'd like to integrate the controversy article here. There is no need for two articles: if we actually pare it down to what is ''reliably sourced'', I think we can handle it in one article. The controversy article will also be extremely difficult to maintain in terms of encyclopedic quality and NPOV, based on what I've seen of editing issues here recently. I agree about cutting down the refs and have made a start; there are also a number of duplicate refs (multiple cites to the same paper) which can be consolidated. In general terms, I think medical articles are best served with an overview grounded in reliable reviews, textbooks, expert bodies, etc, with support from selected primary journal articles. I'm open to seeing some of the more insistent editors produce actual reliable sources on the biowarfare angle, but so far all I've seen there is edit-warring and accusations of censorship, which is disheartening. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' [[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]] 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
DGG, you say you agree with the edits by Mast Cell, who apparently contacted you for help. But in fact his history of editing here, to anyone knowledgeable about Lyme Disease medical literature and controversies, shows blatant bias and violation of NPOV. To take just a few examples, he has removed a section presenting both points of view on the advisability of long-term antibiotic treatment and replaced it with one emphasising the views of the Steere camp as expressed by the 2006 IDSA Lyme committee, whilst deleting information pointing out that IDSA has now been forced to create a new committee whose members will be vetted for financial conflicts of interest. This occurred following an unprecedented investigation by the Attorney General in Connecticut, a hyperendemic Lyme disease area, who found flagrant conflict of interest among the IDSA panel members.
Another example is his inclusion of a highly biased piece in the NY Times caricaturing the Lyme patients' movement as dangerous criminals, "stalking" Dr Allen Steere. Lyme patients exercising en masse their democratic rights to protest at the suffering and negligence they have received from health services as a result of Steere's influence on Lyme medicine is not "stalking".
In addition, there are many examples of hounding and harassment of doctors and scientists on our side. In the 1990's the NIH Lyme Programme officer, a staunch supporter of the Steere camp, committed such flagrant harassment of the leader of the largest patients' campaign of the time that he was dismissed from his post. If we are going to include these issues, in the name of balance, Mast Cell should have mentioned that. In addition there are innumerable examples of doctors and researchers on our side of the dispute being harassed and persecuted because they do not support an arbitrary three-week cut-off in antibiotic treatment, regardless of the patient's condition, or do not accept the validity of serology tests whose validity has been called into question by umpteen peer-reviewed studies.
I don't have time at the moment to list all the many other NPOV violations he has committed, but if you take the time to research some of his references, you will see that all his work is about censoring what you are calling the "non-consensus" view in favour of the US government-promoted view. It is only "non-consensus" because the most powerful government in the world has thrown its weight behind the opposite camp, for reasons that become clear when you read the sections on biowarfare controversy, which Mast Cell and the other Steere camp editors present here consistently censor from this encyclopedia.
~~~~ Elena Cook
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Eight Legs Bad: HI all, thank you all for offering to help, and thanks Andromeda for copying the thread here (there is a parallel discussion in Medical where I've copied a lot of the debate that's been happening in Wiki so far.)
Today I found that I could not reverse the Steerites' changes nor even add a comment about them to the "Discussion" page, I don't know if the Steerite gang has successfully lobbied the Wikipedia staff to exclude me, or if it's just a technical thing.
I tried to add the comment below on the Discussion page today but the software refuses to accept it. If anyone else can add something similar, that would be helpful.
Mast Cell is an obvious Steerite swine who is trying to influence DGG, who is a member of Wikipedia staff, to censor all non-Steerite material.
Anyone wishing to help but needing help with technical issues, etc please p-m me. Thanks. Elena
Excerpt from "Discussion" section of Lyme page on Wikipedia plus my comment which could not be uploaded on 27 June 2008:
==further steps== Mast Cell asked me to have a look, & I generally agree with the edits he's been doing so far. Personally, i would have chosen to integrate the material on the controversy rather than continue it as a separate article, but the other way is justified also.
The biowarfare stuff can be dealt with if it turns out there's actually any material.
The main remaining thing is to edit some of the medical research material at the end and reduce the number of references--they tend to accumulate unnecessarily because the non-consensus side adds whatever it can find, and the mainstream retaliates in kind. Lead references and key recent reviews are sufficient--but not everyone agrees with my view here, for I'd make this objection to a lot of the biology and medicine articles--I think the referencing of them reflects to much the style of a science graduate textbook, not a general encyclopedia.
Great things, good science and medical texttbooks with full referencing, but i dont see what the purpose at Wikipedia. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 22:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
:I'm with you - I'd like to integrate the controversy article here. There is no need for two articles: if we actually pare it down to what is ''reliably sourced'', I think we can handle it in one article. The controversy article will also be extremely difficult to maintain in terms of encyclopedic quality and NPOV, based on what I've seen of editing issues here recently.
I agree about cutting down the refs and have made a start; there are also a number of duplicate refs (multiple cites to the same paper) which can be consolidated. In general terms, I think medical articles are best served with an overview grounded in reliable reviews, textbooks, expert bodies, etc, with support from selected primary journal articles.
I'm open to seeing some of the more insistent editors produce actual reliable sources on the biowarfare angle, but so far all I've seen there is edit-warring and accusations of censorship, which is disheartening. '''[[User:MastCell|MastCell]]''' [[User Talk:MastCell|Talk]] 18:38, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
DGG, you say you agree with the edits by Mast Cell, who apparently contacted you for help. But in fact his history of editing here, to anyone knowledgeable about Lyme Disease medical literature and controversies, shows blatant bias and violation of NPOV.
To take just a few examples, he has removed a section presenting both points of view on the advisability of long-term antibiotic treatment and replaced it with one emphasising the views of the Steere camp as expressed by the 2006 IDSA Lyme committee, whilst deleting information pointing out that IDSA has now been forced to create a new committee whose members will be vetted for financial conflicts of interest.
This occurred following an unprecedented investigation by the Attorney General in Connecticut, a hyperendemic Lyme disease area, who found flagrant conflict of interest among the IDSA panel members.
Another example is his inclusion of a highly biased piece in the NY Times caricaturing the Lyme patients' movement as dangerous criminals, "stalking" Dr Allen Steere.
Lyme patients exercising en masse their democratic rights to protest at the suffering and negligence they have received from health services as a result of Steere's influence on Lyme medicine is not "stalking".
In addition, there are many examples of hounding and harassment of doctors and scientists on our side. In the 1990's the NIH Lyme Programme officer, a staunch supporter of the Steere camp, committed such flagrant harassment of the leader of the largest patients' campaign of the time that he was dismissed from his post.
If we are going to include these issues, in the name of balance, Mast Cell should have mentioned that. In addition there are innumerable examples of doctors and researchers on our side of the dispute being harassed and persecuted because they do not support an arbitrary three-week cut-off in antibiotic treatment, regardless of the patient's condition, or do not accept the validity of serology tests whose validity has been called into question by umpteen peer-reviewed studies.
I don't have time at the moment to list all the many other NPOV violations he has committed, but if you take the time to research some of his references, you will see that all his work is about censoring what you are calling the "non-consensus" view in favour of the US government-promoted view.
It is only "non-consensus" because the most powerful government in the world has thrown its weight behind the opposite camp, for reasons that become clear when you read the sections on biowarfare controversy, which Mast Cell and the other Steere camp editors present here consistently censor from this encyclopedia.
~~~~ Elena Cook
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi all Here is a debate on the EM rash which is raging. Any help in this and all the other stuff they have deleted would be appreciated.
One thing, I noticed there is now a sign up warning people that Wikipedia does not allow groups of people with common interests to organise themselves to edit in a particular way. Well, that is exactly what the Steere camp are doing, and frankly, it must happen all the time on any issue which is hotly in dispute.
Once again, thank you to those who offered to help. Elena
[edit] EM prevalence in Lyme Harrison's says it's 80%. Apparently the other source said 50%. This is why I left it double sourced and said 50-80%. I'm fine with that, or I'm fine with going with just Harrison's and saying 80%. Any preferences? Antelantalk 19:10, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I would prefer to go with Harrison's, as a leading internal medicine textbook, rather than ILADS, which is essentially an advocacy group for a particular view of Lyme disease. MastCell Talk 19:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Sounds medically appropriate. I'll make the change. Antelantalk 19:54, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
"Mast Cell", you deleted my version of the paragraph which was an attempt to remedy your violations of the Neutral Point of View policy by listing three different sources - the Steere camp's 80% figure, the ILADS figure, and a figure of 60% published by the US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, which falls somewhere in between the two.
My material which you deleted also raised the important points that the rash in people with dark skin is often confused with a bruise, and that people of any complexion may miss an existing rash because it is on a "hidden" area of their body, such as the scalp under the hairline, the axilla etc..
You appear to want to censor all information that presents the non-Steere camp point of view, even whem the two sides' views are presented together you are not satisfied.
Your claim that you're not from the Steere camp, and had never heard of Allen Steere before, jars with your claim to be able to conduct a knowledgeable discussion about technical matters such as the prevalence of the erythema chronicum migrans rash.
The fact is, as you are anonymous, no one has any idea whatsoever who you are. I at least have left a name which people could google, if they wished to know more about my background.
The debate about the rash is not JUST a technical matter, by the way. Let me give you all a vey realistic scenario so that you may understand the consequences of your random deletions of my and other people's material.
A member of the public, having been bitten by a tick and suffering vague flu-like symptoms, slightly anxious that he may have Lyme disease, but not unduly worried, as he has no serious symptoms yet, googles Lyme and lands on Wikipedia.
He reads that 80% of sufferers get this rash. Thanks to editing by users like Mast Cell, that is now the ONLY viewpoint on the question available to him. He sees, on the website, photos of a large and pretty unmistakeable target-shaped lesion. He is 100% sure he has nothing like that on his body so, re-assured, he puts the whole matter out of his mind and does not consult his GP about his post tick bite "summer flu".
Several months later, he awakens in terrible pain, feeling weak as a baby, suffering intermittent spasms of his muscles and shockingly, finds he cannot talk properly. He grabs his car keys and drags himself to his vehicle. This takes every ounce of energy he has.
His GP is just a few minutes away. But to his horror he finds that he now has cognitive disturbances so severe that he cannot remember the way there, even though he has been there many many times before - in a neighbourhood he has lived in his entire life.
Can he be helped at this stage? Maybe. But he has missed that window of opportunity when his chances of cure were very very good - at the beginning.
That is the responsibility you bear when you randomly delete peer-reviewed material that testifies to the fact that the EM rash often DOES NOT occur. Had our man in the above scenario read that, things might have been different. As it is, he may end up disabled for life.
Of course you and the other Steere camp people here will say that is impossible, chronic Lyme does not exist etc.. The (literally) tens of thousands of members of the Lyme disease patient campaigns out there beg to disagree.
Elena Cook (Username "Shine a Lite" on Wikipedia) Shine a lite (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
bettyg
Unregistered
posted
elena,
could you show on THIS BOARD what you ARE putting in wikipedia so we know what is more FACTUAL than idsa baloney?
let's have it here for people to go to!! you have worked so hard and countless hours. what is your opinion elena?
IP: Logged |
Below is my original para on the EM rash which they pulled out. I felt I bent over backwards to show "balance" as Wikipedia staff demanded, even including the Steerites' false figure of 80%, knowing how wrong it is and how potentially harmful it is to quote it.
However it looks like the Steerites have ganged up to now block me from editing wikipedia material at all. They have told Wiki staff that I have broken the rules by discussing the situation with all of you guys here, and with other Lymies by email.
Apparently there is a rule that says "no recruitment" ie you are not allowed to inform other people about mistaken info on Wikipedia, and urge them to help you correct it.
The Wiki founders believe that somehow a natural "consensus" will emerge by people randomly reading the encyclopedia and correcting mistakes.
Personally I think the whole situation with the Lyme entry is ridiculous as the Steerites have obviously been recruiting, as well as creating multiple accounts for the same user.
The difference is, the Steerites do not discuss their intentions on a public forum like we are, but in a much more clandestine way, ie the same way they operate in general to do their mayhem.
The result is it is much harder to prove that they are doing this, even though it is obvious to those of us who have participated in the wiki editing.
The situation now, if I understand it right, is that we are all effectively blocked till 7 July as the Steerites have succeeded in lobbying Wiki staff to tell them there is an "edit war" between us and them.
Wiki staff's response was to freeze the page the way it is. Of course the Steerites made sure they had deleted all our material and pasted in their own noxious garbage before making the request.
So now the article is "frozen" just the way they like it - full of lies that can do major harm to the public who reads them.
However, all is not lost, as people can write in and protest both this temporary freeze of the page, and also the blocking of me and any other Lymies who receive the same treatment.
So I suggest that as many of you as possible take the time to register with Wikipedia, familiarise yourself a bit with the rules, look at the "History" and "Discussion" tabs on the Lyme article to see what has been going on, then write in to wiki admin staff with your views.
If a fraction of the people here wrote in, I am sure it would make a major difference. Remember that the victims of the Steerites' actions outnumber the swine themselves by thousands to one.
Just don't mention that Elena suggested you have a look, or they will block you too!
Elena
Here is my para which they replaced with a blanket phrase saying EM occurs 80% of the time:
"The frequency of Erythema migrans in Lyme is in dispute, with some authorities contending that it occurs in 80 percent of all infected patients, while others find it occurs much less often.
The US Army Center for Health Promotion and Preventive Medicine, based at Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, believes it is absent in up to 40% of cases, while other authorities, such as the International Lyme and Associated Diseases Society, put this figure lower still.
Further, the rash may be missed even when present when it is located in less visible areas such as the axilla, hairline etc.. In dark-skinned people the rash may be confused with a bruise."
quote:Originally posted by bettyg: elena,
could you show on THIS BOARD what you ARE putting in wikipedia so we know what is more FACTUAL than idsa baloney?
let's have it here for people to go to!! you have worked so hard and countless hours. what is your opinion elena?
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hi Lisa: I got banned this week too... hacks took out my scientific footnotes regarding persistence of infection (on the Lyme disease controversy page)and when I put them back in repeatedly and they took them out, I said DO NOT DELETE THESE FOOTNOTES WITHOUT DISCUSSION OR I WILL START AN EDIT WAR... They reported me to an administrator and had me banned for threatening to start an edit war... what they NEED is a civilized edit war that brings their pages up to date... they are under the control of Steerites... the same guy edits the Lyme and the Morgellons page and he describes us with words like FRINGE.. What a lunatic....
He claims that the Steerites are "mainstream" because IDSA and AAN agree... When I pointed out the ITS THE SAME PEOPLE ON THE COMMITTEE AT BOTH IDSA AND AAN.. he never responded... Their same MO is to not bother to respond, and then have you banned.. It is a setup.... and its totally bogus...
I think our time is better spent making videos on Youtube, and writing congress. Nobody trusts Wikipedia as a source anyway-- it has a toally damaged reputation.. Its just like when the government says inflation is 3 percent and you go to the gas pump and its 4 times the price!!! HA HA The govt lies, Wiki lies... The networks lie... Its just one big lie, as George Orwell said it would be!! 2+2 = 5 2+2 = 5 2+2 = 5 2+2 = 5 2+2 = 5
LOL Thats how thegovernment drove Winston crazy in the book 1984..... Poor Winston ended up believing that 2 and 2 were indeed 5.
Carla
PS Personally-- I think the economy is going to collapse under the weight of all the derivatives this fall.. and when the people start to get angry about how the govt has ripped off their savings and lied...
....They'll just pull out another handy dandy bioweapon to use on ALL of us nasty US citizens who they now define as "insurgents."!!! LOL Posts: 696 | From New York | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the section on "Controversy and Politics," perhaps someone can update this slanted part to include some reliable web sites:
...A significant amount of inaccurate information on Lyme disease exists on the Internet. A 2004 study found that 9 of 19 websites surveyed contained major inaccuracies. Sites found to be good sources of accurate information in this study included those of the American College of Physicians, the Centers for Disease Control, the Food and Drug Administration, and Johns Hopkins University (www.hopkins-arthritis.org).[123]...
-------------------- My biofilm film: www.whyamistillsick.com 2004 Mycoplasma Pneumonia 2006 Positive after 2 years of hell 2006-08 Marshall Protocol. Killed many bug species 2009 - Beating candida, doing better Lahey Clinic in Mass: what a racquet! Posts: 830 | From Mass. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah-- We allow corrupt scientists to rip us off -- they own the patent on the organism, and the diagnostic test and they charge us and rip off our insurance companies for this test that is not even accurate-- when we lobby congress for funds for an improved test, the IDSA blocks the legislation!!! Guess why? Because they make money off their current patent... if the test is improved, they'll lose their money...because their bogus patent will be useless.
And we are supposed to trust their corrupt sources?
I will try to to make this change for you at Wiki since i do agree with you... but with almost no help or support in editing over there... it will be difficult for me.. the site is flooded with shills who want to stifle facts, and the only two people editing over there with our perspective are me and Lisa.. and they are constantly trying to ban us, restrict us, bully us and intimidate us. So... we are fighting this battle alone and it is very difficult.. and we probably will be outnumbered, I am sorry to say-- this is what our freedom has come down to on this Fourth of July..
Posts: 696 | From New York | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many of us can help with this effort! In the meantime, what are 4-8 reliable, credible web sites that provide reliable information to patients? I have my own ideas -- but want to hear from the community.
Hey, the colonial army was outgunned and outmanned by the British! But the tenacity and intelligence (and a little luck) won the battle for the new Americans!
-------------------- My biofilm film: www.whyamistillsick.com 2004 Mycoplasma Pneumonia 2006 Positive after 2 years of hell 2006-08 Marshall Protocol. Killed many bug species 2009 - Beating candida, doing better Lahey Clinic in Mass: what a racquet! Posts: 830 | From Mass. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
Thanks for your comments... The organized shills at Wikipedia maneuvered the system this weekend to have a threatening notice posted at the site --- warning about "recruitment efforts..."
They banned all new users until July 7th-- typical of the games that the liars at IDSA and CDC play when they are engaged in a cover-up....
Now, unsuspecting people who visit Wikipedia over the July fourth weekend will be told the unproven "fact" that the EM rash is present 80 percent of the time... when the army already said that the incidence is 40%... and ILADs has an even lower estimate...
I am a long standing editor over there.. and I reinserted the US Army's 40% EM RASH fact.... but they'll just take it out again....
Why is this important?
Some poor shmuck out there who doesnt get a rash this weekend won't get treatment because he read it on Wikipedia!!
We all know that this crowd of lying and greed driven scientists have engaged in extensive recruitment for their propaganda push... they have paid shills who monitor Wikipedia, this forum day and night... and who monitor sci.med.disease.lyme on a minute by minute basis.. they report back and then adjust their strategy based on what we say here.
They have buddies at Forbes, the NY Times and Castle Connolly... Im afraid this is a battle we PROBABLY CANNOT WIN
None of this is happening by accident-- they are well funded and well organized... as is evidenced by their successful lobbying of Congress to deny us our Lyme funding for an improved diagnostic test-- these people are intent on protecting their profitable patent rights and their lucrative and shoddy and FAILED diagnostic tests (that under count the epidemic by design).... as well as the rights of insurance companies not to provide hundreds of thousands with choices on treatment...
Its all about the money.... we don't have the money or the organization and THEY DO....
..... they'll stop at nothing to cover up their scientific fraud.... and play games to demonstrate that they are the scientific "mainstream..." when all they do is lie to the public for their own personal greed..
There are only two people on Lymenet....a forum of THOUSANDS---- who edit at Wikipedia....me and Lisa... but these corrupt scientists and their paid shill have manipulated the Wikipedia staff into thinking that we are "recruiting..." when the reality is -- THE WIKI PAGE IS FULL OF SCIENTIFIC OMISSIONS, DISTORTIONS, MISDIRECTIONS... HALF TRUTHS, AND LIES DUE TO THE ORGANIZED PAID SHILLS THAT HANG OUT THERE...
Patients here are angry about that Lyme disease page.... and instead we are accused of recruitment?
This page, at present, STINKS and needs serious revision.
Its not about recruitment -- its about anger over obfuscation at WIKIPEDIA-- the shoddy job on the Lyme disease page there.. and the cabal that is holding Wiki captive..
HA...HA....HA these corrupt scientists are the ones who have engaged in recruitment and collusion... at Wikipedia... they are now paranoid that angry patients might get involved as editors in increasing numbers... and they are trying to stop the flow of information in order to bolster their COVER UP of their illegal SCIENTIFIC FRAUD..
Its not about their crimes... its ALWAYS about the cover up.
Thanks again COLD-- sorry for this lengthy post-- but I am sooooo discouraged right now... Iam being crushed by being only one of two people from Lymenet over there who has the burden of editing that ridiculous page.. and I'm tired of it.
I wanted to do something constructive about my illness rather than just complain about my symptoms.. but it seems they just want us sheeple over here to shut up and be distracted by our illness so that no light is shined on their greed..
it is too emotionally exhausting... i will give up because I can't take it anymore....let them get away with their fraud.... I don't care anymore.
Carla
PS One reputable source of scientific information that was omitted over there is ILADS..
Posts: 696 | From New York | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Carla, no worries about the explanative post. It helps us understand what the hell is going on -- the challenges we face in the midst of a weird and transient problem. Yes, it will pass...in some strange way.
I found out how difficult it is to do several jobs at once, while healing. It's not healthy to do both, in my humble opinion. So, jeez, take care of yourself FIRST. You are smart to let go of an absurdly perpetual challenge.
So, let's work on the "recruitment" effort of truth. If anyone can help me carry the torch of advocacy, democracy and education, please PM when you can. The task at hand is simple, we just need the long-term resolve to make it happen. It's really not that hard; but the reward is great. As Carla said, many people may be able to avoid the pain & suffering of a missed diagnosis and treatment!!!
-------------------- My biofilm film: www.whyamistillsick.com 2004 Mycoplasma Pneumonia 2006 Positive after 2 years of hell 2006-08 Marshall Protocol. Killed many bug species 2009 - Beating candida, doing better Lahey Clinic in Mass: what a racquet! Posts: 830 | From Mass. | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you for all your hard work. Everything about this disease is a battle. I am so impressed that you are taking on IDSA, and making a difference.
I am proud of you
Posts: 261 | From Piedmont | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
I agree with you 100%. It is important that everyone who wants to advocate for Lyme takes care of themselves first and puts their own health at priority number 1. If this absurd fight is too physically or emotionally stressful then its not worth it.
I'd personally be glad to help out with the wikipedia battle anyway I can. Please pm with details.
-------------------- I was diagnosed with and treated for late stage Lyme in 1991 with 6 weeks of doxycycline. Initially felt better, but then developed health problems that last until today. Posts: 83 | From New Jersey | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
... If this absurd fight is too physically or emotionally stressful then its not worth it.
...
I think what Snapcrackle was saying about the fight being too exhausting is the fact that she felt that she was trying to shoulder the fight alone, or almost alone. If many people helped, even just a little, there would be less burden on a few.
Snapcrackle, there were more than just two combatting the Steerites and shills, but you are right, there needs to be far more. I am temporarily having to take a back seat now as a friend is in crisis and needs my help, but I will be back to continue this battle, both at Wikipedia and in other arenas.
In the meantime any others who can help, it would be appreciated but I strongly urge you all to organise yourselves OFF-LIST, as the Steerites do. Otherwise the Steerites will cynically use Wikipedia's "No Recruitment" policy to have you kicked off as they did with me.
If the staff at Wikipedia believe that the tiny number of scientists in the world who both have extensive knowledge of borrelia AND support the Steerite view, all happened to converge on the site and begin editing all at once by pure chance, and without "recruitment", then good luck to them.
Elena
-------------------- Justice will be ours. Posts: 786 | From UK | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged |
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
In my prior post I mentioned I had an accurate version of the original article we had from 2006. We can reestablish correct data using this template. If you visit Wikipedia, you'll find the IDSA has completely absorbed our data, so let's get started.
Since we're starting from scratch again:
Teamwork:
We should put a team together to re-establish the original post. Each of us should pick a section and then one person should be responsible for the final edit to make sure all references are correctly linked to the correct citation, and that the table of contents and grammar are accurate. The key isn't to erase everything and replace it, but rather to reincorporate the correct data that "balances" the circumstances.
Individual Responsibility
Each person may choose two sections here. I will list the Table Of Contents for the original 2006 Update, and you can choose the one you want. I will also post the 2009 Table Of Contents which you will also choose a section that corresponds to your first. If a section is unique to only one version, such as the 2009 version has a section for "Documentary" -- you can choose to do just one alone.
Accuracy, Ethics, Credibility
It will be your job to accurately re-update the data using the old information and to then compare it with the latest IDSA altered data. You may keep some IDSA data if the facts support it's relevancy in the debate. Have integrity and support all facts with sources from both sources of the IDSA and ILADS. Ethics is crucial. Do not bias your data, because trust me, others will be reviewing what you write and it must reflect truth and facts.
2006 Version
Here was the original table of contents of the NOVEMBER 7th Update on WikiPedia Topic Lyme Disease.
Contents * 1 Symptoms ........o 1.1 Acute (early) symptoms that may occur ........o 1.2 Chronic (late) symptoms
* 2 Transmission ........o 2.2 Transmission by ticks ........o 2.3 Congenital Lyme disease ........o 2.4 Other modes of transmission
* 3 Microbiology ........o 3.1 Strains ........o 3.2 Genomic characteristics ........o 3.3 Structure and growth ........o 3.4 Mechanisms of persistence
* 4 Diagnosis * 5 Prognosis * 6 Treatment
* 7 The Lyme controversy ........o 7.1 Two standards of care ........o 7.2 The CDC case definition ........o 7.3 Testing ........o 7.4 Long-term antibiotic therapy .....................*7.4.1 Evidence from controlled studies .....................*7.4.2 Evidence from uncontrolled studies .....................*7.4.3 Implications for treatment
* 8 Prevention ........o 8.1 Proper Removal of Ticks
* 9 Ecology
* 10 Epidemiology
* 11 History
* 12 References
* 13 External links
2009 Version
Here was the original table of contents of the 2009 Update on WikiPedia Topic Lyme Disease.
Contents
* 1 Symptoms ........o 1.1 Stage 1 - Early localized infection ........o 1.2 Stage 2 - Early disseminated infection ........o 1.3 Stage 3 - Late persistent infection
Choose Corresponding Section of 2006 ver. with 2009 ver.
This is a review: Once you choose your content page section for the original 2006 section, you must then choose a corresponding section from the 2009 contents. Your job is to connect them, organize them, extract useful data to make them balanced and useful to readers who may come to Wikipedia as their source of information on this disease. Again, you may add new updated information to your section that is not available on the section I give you, but it must be cited, credible, and honest.
Example of sections chosen and what to post here once you've made your decision.
"I chose from the 2006 version and then :
* 1 Symptoms ........o 1.1 Acute (early) symptoms that may occur ........o 1.2 Chronic (late) symptoms
"I chose the corresponding section for the 2009 version:
* 1 Symptoms ........o 1.1 Stage 1 - Early localized infection ........o 1.2 Stage 2 - Early disseminated infection ........o 1.3 Stage 3 - Late persistent infection
As you can see, one person would cover all these sections and edit them. You may choose bigger sections like these, or a smaller section for those who don't feel they can manage bigger sections. A smaller section might be:
"I chose Prognosis from the 2006 version"
* 5 Prognosis
"I chose Prognosis from the 2009 version"
* 7 Prognosis
Who Is Keeping Track?
We are. There will be a main editor, but it's up to each of you individually to work on your individual section and to them contact the editor once finished. Please post your actual entire section here when finished. When you finish your version post it to Wiki, and then post the title of your section on a thread called "Wikipedia Battle In Full Swing" -- you'll find the link at the bottom of this post.
Let's Begin
So who wants to begin? Take your time with your update. Write it out in Word, Notepad -- or whatever you wish, and keep a copy of it until you're ready to finalize the data. Once finished, you can PM the person here who decides to handle the editing process. This way the changes are done incrementally on the Wiki page, not all at once, which would send a signal. I realize by discussing this here publicly, that it may raise a red flag, but suffice to say it's the best course of action.
Summary
*1: Choose your contents section from the original 2006 data. *2: Choose a second section from the content section of the 2009 data. *3: When you finish choosing your content section post it in this current thread. This thread is ground zero for the project if people choose to do it. *4: Fuse the two contents sections you chose from 2006 and 2009. Fuse them together using credible sources and intelligent writing. Do not speculate. Your data must rely on studies, and resources supporting both sides of the debate. *5: Contact the primary editor by PM and revise the data until it reflects accurate data that helps our cause while also being ethical and objective. *6: Once your section has been revised with the editor, notify us with a quick note that your section has been posted. Members should not attempt to continue revision at this time.
Most Important: Lead Editor
Who is up for the challenge of handling the entire editing process? Your job will be to work with each person who comes to you with their individual section. You will read and review both copies of the original 2006 and 2009 Wikipedia entry, and to be reasonable and ethical about it's application when the individual hands in their version.
Scientific Journal Background
My choice for an editor would be Oxygenbabe by default if she were still here and still willing. Someone with a scientific journalism background would be most helpful, though anyone confident in meeting the challenge can accept.
How To Review Copies Of 2006 Version and 2009 Version
To receive the original copies of the 2006 version and the 2009 version:
This thread is ground zero. There are about 10 other threads where I posted this same project. This is the "main" one where everything will be done. [/QUOTE]
-------------------- I am not a physician, so do your own research to confirm any ideas given and then speak with a health care provider you trust.
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
This thread is ground zero. It has come to my attention that recruiting is against the rules. If someone wants to manage this concept by e-mail group coordination, feel free. I have posted the team project on about 5 different threads. My concept was only to serve as an idea, not something I would get involved with beyond that.
1: Topic: CDC, US military etc Tampering with Online Lyme Info
METALLlC BLUE
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 6628
posted
Those who wish to use facts from studies to support persistent infection are welcome to read the studies I've collected. I have about 120 studies with data in bold that documents that Chronic Infection exists.
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
-
Can LDA and ILADS meet with the actual people who own the Wiki site ?
A real person or a committee of real persons make these decisions. I'd love to see a personal relationship between Wiki's real people and some of the folks from LDA and ILADS.
Nothing beats a real relationship, backed with research.
The Lyme Disease Network is a non-profit organization funded by individual donations. If you would like to support the Network and the LymeNet system of Web services, please send your donations to:
The
Lyme Disease Network of New Jersey 907 Pebble Creek Court,
Pennington,
NJ08534USA http://www.lymenet.org/
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[group hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[kiss]](graemlins/kissing.gif)
![[cussing]](graemlins/cussing.gif)
Elena![[bonk]](graemlins/bonk.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic