- 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. -
Posted by Keebler (Member # 12673) on :
- 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. -
Posted by Catgirl (Member # 31149) on :
I agree Keebler.
Posted by poppy (Member # 5355) on :
Was this actually published in the magazine? Or is it only in this online blog?
Posted by C.P. (Member # 38378) on :
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.
C.P.
Posted by AuntyLynn (Member # 35938) on :
Agreed C.P.-
I left a similar comment at the "Activism" thread where this same article was posted.
Posted by Lymetoo (Member # 743) on :
moving to Activism
Posted by droid1226 (Member # 34930) on :
The New Yorker is a very left wing publication and always has been. This is less a lyme article and more an anti Romney article.
Posted by chastain (Member # 34236) on :
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.
Posted by C.P. (Member # 38378) on :
If anyone wants to write a letter to the editor at The New Yorker, here is the website:
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.
Posted by 'Kete-tracker (Member # 17189) on :
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.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[cussing]](graemlins/cussing.gif)
SIMPLY not true! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LOL![[dizzy]](graemlins/dizzy.gif)
![[shake]](graemlins/shake.gif)