posted 27 January 2005 18:51            

In a strange twist, I looked up Amy Norton and found another article written by her, where she credit the "source" of her article as

"Journal of Biological Chemistry, online Dec. 7, 2004"

It seems that Ms. Amy discredits lyme websites and "misinformed" yet it is evident that she gets her info online as the source of this article.

So, let me get this straight...When she's getting her info online, it's credible???

posted 27 January 2005 19:10               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Wildthing:

So, let me get this straight...When she's getting her info online, it's credible???

---

editing to add.... My, my....Ms. Amy's rating has dropped to 1.27 now! Down from 1.67 this morning! Keep 'em coming!

------------------
oops!
Lymetutu

posted 27 January 2005 23:10               

quote:

---

Originally posted by virginia/anez:
Sooner or later the truth will come out.
They are the ones who should be scare to death.
On our behalf we already found the truth (we are a step a head) instead they have a long work to do to realize whats going on...and usually that happen when someone that they love more than enything gets infected.
No more comments!

---

Very true Virginia,

Eventually, even the arrogance of the Duck community will be steamrolled by the sheer number of lyme sufferers. It's inevitable, and lymies will become a political force. Ten or twenty thousand lymies in a few key states could swing congressional, senatorial, and even presidential elections.

My son was just hospitalized for some of his lyme symptoms, pain, vertigo, insomnia. Our LLMD placed him in a small town hopsital where he practices so he would have a few days to regulate his meds, and get his symptoms under control.
Now mind you, this is a 20 bed hospital in the far reaches of northern WI. The nurses told us how they treat lyme patients on a daily basis. How their outpatient services are full of lymies receiving ABX IV's.
The cat is completely out of the bag here, and Doc's are treating people regardless of what insurance companies, and ducks have to say about it.
Told me some real horror stories about how, they're treating people that Ducks misdiagnosed with MS, etc. Many of these nurses have had family members who've had lyme. The 30 day doxy routine is laughed at here. Dedicated, caring medical professionals, who've seen the ravages of lyme firsthand. They've been giving IV ABX for over ten years here.
Said their big problem is that blastosis is a huge problem, and their area isn't recognized by the establishment as an infected area. The nurses and doctors scratch their heads over this, saying "then why the hell are we treating blastosis on a daily basis" ?!
Seems like lyme isn't the only politicized ailment.
The truth is coming, and all the ducks and insurance executives in the world can't stop it !

posted 27 January 2005 23:25            

Dear Health Editor,
Please be advised that Amy Norton has caused quite a negative impact on Reuters. I cannot begin to tell you how her shoddy reporting has insulted and harmed many people. I can only direct you to see for yourself. At the very least, I feel that Amy Norton owes the Lyme Disease community a huge apology. Although, she really should write an article regarding the hell that lyme disease victims go through, to undo some of the damage she has caused.

I am curious though, as to why you would use her for your reports. I have researched many of her articles online, and have found that her articles do not involve much, if any, of her own research and do not demonstrate any in-depth reporting skills. Most of her articles seem to be just reprints of studies. It doesn't seem to me that it takes much talent-or skill to do her level of "reporting". (This is strictly my opinion)

This lyme disease article showed only one side-and one opinion. It did not show any willingness or ability to really "research" a story. Laziness? Maybe, but in the mean time she had done alot of damage.

Here are some examples (and remember, this reflects on Reuters as well:
http://flash.lymenet.org/ubb/Forum1/HTML/031033.html
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050125/hl_nm/lyme_web_dc _1

Please be sure to notice the ratings and the responses to this article, not good for Reuter's image, is it?

Well, since we have not seen any kind of apology from Amy Norton, I am hoping that Reuters will find a way to undo the damage that she has done.

And even more important: Try to hire freelancers that know how really do a story-not just piss everyone off!

posted 27 January 2005 23:51               

Good job, Wildthing! Where did you send the letter?

posted 28 January 2005 01:19               

norty01@earthlink.net

health.editor@reuters.com

posted 28 January 2005 01:47               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lymetoo:
NP....very interesting and sad. What is blastosis??

Good job, Wildthing! Where did you send the letter?

---

Lymetoo,
"Blasto", as we call it here in Wisconsin is a microorganism type infection that people can get from water. Namely , rivers, lakes, that are somewhat stagnant, with algae growth. I believe they can get infected through breathing the small spore, or inadvertently drinking it while swimming, etc.
It can be quite deadly, as a friend of mine's child died from it. I believe that it is treatable if caught in time.
Very nasty stuff from what the nurses at the hospital told me.
It certainly isn't on the scale of lyme as far as number of infections, but it can kill if not treated in a proper time frame.
As if we don't have enough to worry about.............

posted 28 January 2005 10:47               

Good idea, danq!!....update...."You have given the news article Some Lyme Disease Web Sites Misinform -Study a rating of 1.
Its current average rating is 1.27 with 117 vote(s)."

posted 28 January 2005 13:33               

"I want let you know that the article by Amy Norton, Reuters on "Some Lyme Disease Web Sites Misinform -Study" from Jan 25, is stirring a lot of negative response due to its lack of objectivity and poor journalistic research."

I also included my email address. Let's see if they reply...

posted 28 January 2005 18:47            

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raskilnokov:
Tried to post on Yahoo but you have to sign up....haven't received a password a day later. Will try e-mail directly to Ms. Norton.

---

Also, a direct e-mail to address provided earlier on this thread came back undeliverable.

posted 28 January 2005 19:10               

You have given the news article Some Lyme Disease Web Sites Misinform -Study a rating of 1.
Its current average rating is 1.29 with 141 vote(s).

posted 03 February 2005 13:08               

I just responded with:

This information is so outdated it is appalling.

When I was first diagnosed with Lyme Disease, I searched the net for any information possible.

What I found were pages and pages of information that was posted 10 or more years ago.

It took months to find current info and I'm certain this article did not take months of reasearch to compile.

Please do not belittle extremely ill people by relying upon information that is prioritized by whatever particular search engine you happen to be using on a given day.

The doctors who are actually treating this disease in humans are a lot more knowledgeable about it than a professor in a laboratory treating mice.

There is a lot more research information being published as we speak that is backing up the need for longer treatment in chronic or late-disseminated Lyme Disease.

posted 04 February 2005 01:49               

There are 31 response letters to the article. I haven't read them but from the sound of the headings...if Amy is reading then she is getting an earful.

Did anyone find a good email address for her and get a response from her?

posted 04 February 2005 21:56            

Not because I disagree with what she wrote, although I do, but because a journalist is supposed to impartialy review all of the facts and report on such. Not one side of the story.

posted 05 February 2005 18:09               

As creator of the website http://www.lymeinfo.net , one of the websites targeted by Feder’s article, I must say that the LymeInfo website is based both on sound medical literature as well as extensive patient experience.

But please don’t take my word for it, just as you shouldn’t take Feder’s. I encourage readers to visit the website to come to their own conclusions. In particular, I direct readers to the medical literature summaries at http://www.lymeinfo.net/lymefiles.html . These summaries consist of peer-reviewed medical literature that disprove the statement “there is no evidence that any of the lingering problems associated with Lyme disease are the result of persistent infection with B. burgdorferi.”

I further find Feder’s statement that “some of these sites may have had an agenda other than education” highly offensive and inflammatory. Since 1997, LymeInfo has been a purely volunteer effort, and I find it both inappropriate and unscientific for Feder to opine as to motive. This website's ONLY purpose is to educate, promote early detection so that irreversible chronic illness and disability is not the result of ignorance, and to provide a comprehensive, reliable reference resource in one well-organized site.

LymeInfo is a collaborative work of highly educated and knowledgeable people. At the end of the day everyone who has contributed to the website can feel satisfied that the website has given people a place to turn to receive accurate information about tick-borne illnesses.

Cheryl

PS. Lymeinfo.net is proudly in compliance with the Health on the Net Foundation’s Code of Conduct for health and medical websites.
http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html?HONConduct548219

------------------
Lyme Disease Information By Email:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lymeinfo/
Lyme Disease Information Online:
http://www.lymeinfo.net
FEB 2005- New website coming soon!