Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- It is so sad to see that a publication with such stature as the New Yorker would take such a stance.
Even worse is how they report on Dr. J and the license challenge in N.C. and his move to D.C. They got that so very, very wrong, totally ignorant of the politics behind that.
The author could not be more ignorant about the science of lyme. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Keebler
Honored Contributor (25K+ posts)
Member # 12673
posted
- There are many good replies but most who get the magazine will not see these corrections. I'll even bet the writer's boss will not see them.
Oh, but wait. Who contributes to the "New Yorker"? Who gives them money? Who buys advertising? Who are their medical advisors?
Tracing monetary support most often explains why the media is very ignorant about lyme. And, considering the time limits of most, although those with the "New Yorker" are supposed to stand out for their diligence. This one fails. -
Posts: 48021 | From Tree House | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
Catgirl
Frequent Contributor (5K+ posts)
Member # 31149
posted
I agree Keebler.
-------------------- --Keep an open mind about everything. Also, remember to visit ACTIVISM (we can change things together). Posts: 5418 | From earth | Registered: Mar 2011
| IP: Logged |
poppy
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 5355
posted
Was this actually published in the magazine? Or is it only in this online blog?
Posts: 2888 | From USA | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've just read the article in "The New Yorker", and it's more of a bash against Romney with the author using the CDC to boost the content's validity. I'm going to write to the magazine and complain about their ingnorance in regard to Lyme Disease. There's no excuse for it.
If they want to make Romney look like an idiot, they should not use Lyme Disease to do it. We are suffering enough and need as much help as we can get from everyone. Lyme disease is already controversial, so we don't need it to be a "poster child" for any kind of political party. I don't want the disease to be discounted because it became ignorantly affiliated with one of the political parties. If both candidates as well as the other candidates on the ballot want to champion a cure or proper treatment for Lyme Disease, that's great; however, Lyme Disease should not be used as a tool to make a candidate look stupid, no matter what party he or she belongs to. Lyme Disease is not a democrat, republican, or independent - it affects people from all parties.
AuntyLynn
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 35938
posted
Agreed C.P.-
I left a similar comment at the "Activism" thread where this same article was posted.
Posts: 1432 | From New Jersey | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged |
posted
I edit mainly political pieces on a freelance basis for several publications and most of them have left-wing political beliefs. The editors in chief at the publications I work for all aspire for their liberal magazines to be just like The New Yorker. The New Yorker is indeed a bastion of liberal media and always has been.
This article is terrible because of the misinformation it spreads about lyme but the intent here is definitely more to destroy Romney and make him seem like a crackpot and a fool than anything else. Nonetheless, I hate any piece of writing that helps to reinforce myths about the seriousness of this illness. Jess.
Posts: 651 | From ct | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
Also, it wouldn't hurt to write a letter and mail it directly to David Remnick, editor of The New Yorker. I want to make sure he gets plenty of mail schooling him on responsibility and ethics. C.P.
Posts: 106 | From Colorado | Registered: Jul 2012
| IP: Logged |
'Kete-tracker
Frequent Contributor (1K+ posts)
Member # 17189
posted
Welp... Obviously Mr. Specter is one of those sadly mis-informed folk who take the IDSA position as gospel.
On Lyme, he writes that it's "a difficult disease to contract". HUH!?? He lives in NY state, for chrissake. What does THAT say about him?
"a tick needs to attach itself.. for atleast 24 hours" SIMPLY not true! What?... The 'ketes look at thier watches? LOL
The 2 adult, male deer ticks that 'got' me were on me for 21 hours & I was terribly sick for over 8 months! And I'm STILL somewhat symptomatic!
WHERE DID ANYONE EVER GET THE *IDEA* THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE 24 HOURS OF "ATTACHMENT" to contract the disease?? WHY 24?
Finally, regards his writing that 2 weeks of "commonly prescribed" abx will "kill the [Borrelia Burdorferi] bacterium"... Does he even FATHOM the *world* of difference between treating immediately after attachment & treating several months (& growth cycles) later??
I sometimes am *amazed* what information gets published in such an esteemed & repected national magazine... and what doesn't. Posts: 1233 | From Dover, NH | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
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!
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[cussing]](graemlins/cussing.gif)
SIMPLY not true! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL![[dizzy]](graemlins/dizzy.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic