Talk:Lyme disease/Archive 1

message: Good job! The information on this page seems mostly complete. As a side note, one might mention that there is great controversy surrounding the diagnosis and treatment of Lyme disease. It is the opinion of the Lyme disease community that a patient who suspects infection should seek antibiotic treatments at all costs (i.e. see several doctors if necessary).--Missruth 01:19, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  2004 comments 

message: I think the information inserted about tick life cycles can safely be moved to relevant pages about Ixodes spp. JFW | T@lk 12:34, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: New additions

message: I have asked  to adhere to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. If there  is no rapid improvement I will revert. JFW | T@lk 15:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The editor made an edit after I left the message, yet did not revise his/her edits. I have reverted all the material, and await further argumentation here. JFW | T@lk 16:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  68.60.219.178 

message: An anon listed this for . This is not a good cleanup candidate, nor is it really in need for rewriting. It needs some sources, copyediting etc, but the tag is unnecessary. JFW | T@lk 10:52, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More tagslapping 

message: Please refer to WP:NOT which states: Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s.   It is a really important policy.  This article needs to be edited to remove all medical and how to info.--A  Y  Arktos 19:53, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the content is descriptive and not prescriptive, it is not a violation of WP:NOT. The deleted content has been restored. --Arcadian 20:17, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed specific brand name drugs mentioned and how to remove tick info - not merely descriptive in my view but prescriptive.  I feel very strongly on this issue and therefore recommend it have discussion from several editors before changes, including reference for your view that medical info is OK if not prescriptive.--A  Y  Arktos 22:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No how to info or medical advice 

message: "It is also debaitable whether Lyme disease can be passed on from a mother to a child."
(1) Contradicts existing description in Transmission section.
(2) Rare mode already in Transmission section. AvB ÷ talk 08:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Debaitable? It is a disease of the blood, although I do not know if it can be passed from father to offspring; the mother gives birth, and their son/daughter is their blood. It is obvious that the disease would carry on, even if a milder or maybe an even stronger strain.
 Big Boss Ocelot  18:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We seem to be in agreement here. Placental transmission was mentioned in the Transmission section as a documented possibility. "Debatable" was contradictory. The info has now been sourced and can be found under Congenital Lyme Disease. Sexual transmission is now mentioned in the "Other modes of transmission" section (unsourced). AvB ÷ talk 19:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I respect your views and I appretiate you pointing out certain aspects. But there is still much that needs to be researched. Please see the test below I posted. I claim to know only what I know, I am simply upset at the fact that someone had the nerve to say that this disease didn't even exist and people are simply lazy, I will admit I have been lazy in the past; and every once in a while, but who isn't? You get tired, you relax, or at least want to. Personally, in my POV; everyone suffers form fatigue, even if they are not ill. Job's and life itself is stressfull, sometimes you need to relax; it is just unfortunate that in my condition I have to relax more then others. I have tried 8 hours of sleep and yet I need 12. Although some people would see that as a luxury, I do not. I would rather wake up early, go to work, bust my ass, come home, and have a reason to feel fatigued, instead of just sitting here. But I respect you and your input, you are a very knowledgable person and I hope you can help end this dispute with me. Have a great day!
 Big Boss Ocelot  20:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know that we have a dispute. It's true that someone said that on this talk page; it was obviously incorrect and I responded to it, asking for specifics.  The anon did not respond so to me it looks like trolling. If I were you I'd simply ignore it. Did you read my story (below)? Today is my 28th "anniversary". We're in the same boat... AvB ÷ talk 20:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It would appear that we are friend; I am sorry to hear, it is indeed one that takes on water very quickly, to say the least. But the  on the main page lead me to believe that it still was; is it, or is it not? I am a bit confused.
 Big Boss Ocelot  21:28, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, I see what you mean. When someone removed the NPOV tag placed by Frpaneloux, I reinserted it since the issue had not been discussed in full and no consensus had been reached or even attempted. I have not been involved in the dispute but User:Light_current suggested that Frpaneloux edit the article to resolve any concerns; User:Davidruben wrote to Frpaneloux (see User_talk:Frpaneloux) and User:Bapb defended the current article. Nothing was heard from Frpaneloux in over a week. Three days ago the single line "Please continue negotiating criticisms. The dispute is not resolved. 209.226.121.107 03:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you my friend, that just made my day. Although I had been wondering the same thing and if I should remove the tag myself, but was still not 100% certain if that would be the best course of action, considering I wasn't sure who started the dispute in the first place. And yes you are right, if the person doesn't even want to continue his claim in regards of disputing the article; then you are right in removing the tag, thank you and God bless.
 Big Boss Ocelot  17:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed new sentence from introduction

message: The references were previously out of order of their mention in the text and with no forward or backlinks between main article and reference sections. Furthermore any in-line reference came up as a numerical number that bore no relationship to the numbers in the references section (being of a different system). Finally no web-links were provided for the referenced articles. I have therefore added PubMed links, and used the new cite:ref system to mark references where they occur in the text. The "< references / >" then flushes the individual references into the correct sequence and allows for duplicates.
It should now be much easier to add additional references when required, as no manual consideration need be given to ensure they are listed in the correct sequence. David Ruben  Talk  05:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: I am impressed by the number and depth of recent & ongoing edits by User:Bapb; hence my raising a suggestion here, rather than cause an unintentional edit-conflict.  I suggest moving the Lyme controversy section to the end of the article, not because of its unimportance, but because it will make more sense to the overall structure of the article (it currently comes before any description of "accepted" symptoms, diagnosis, treatment) and it will help the "lay-reader" to then understand some of the more complex issues discussed in the "controversy" section. David Ruben  Talk  04:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was actually thinking the very same thing, and will make the change.  Thanks for the getting the cite:ref system going, by the way - it's obviously a big help. Bapb 05:35, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lyme controversy

message: There's no information here on the life cycle of Borrelia burgdorferi, which appears to be quite complex and interesting.  The role of alternate hosts of the disease would also be good to include, especially in the context of control of the disease.  It's pretty far out of my field, though, so I'd like someone else to do it.  Toiyabe 22:22, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Life Cycle

message: Has there ever been a study or believable indication of whether people who claim to have Lyme actually held jobs even before "symptoms" appeared? 209.226.121.127 21:35, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No study per-say, but I myself have Chronic Lyme and I did hold a Job at blockbuster, although it brought to disease out of remission along with being in a band at the same time. As long as you let your job know, and obtain a doctors note that you need reasonable accomidations, then you will be able to pace yourself at work, or anything else that is your profession.
 Big Boss Ocelot  17:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Employment and Lyme 

message: I thought this was named after Lyme Bay in Dorset, UK. Thats what the inhabitants there say 8-? --Light current 14:24, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was named after the Connecticut town: see , , and . For a more detailed history as well as a fascinating read, check out The Widening Circle written by Polly Murray, one of the Lyme, CT mothers who struggled for years to get doctors to recognize the disease in the early 1970s. 70.22.157.244 15:03, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming 

message: The following is the results from my lab test results
*Patient
**Name: Friedel, Cory
**Age: 25 / 1
**Sex: M
***Address and phone # I prefer not to release.
*Clinical Information
**Physician ID: Eiras M
***Also not releasing other personal information.
**Lab: LA ViroMed, 6101 Blue Circle Drive, Minnetonka, MN 55343-9018
***Director: Steven Anderson M PhD.
**Lab: RN LabCorp Raritan, 69 First Avene, Raritan, NJ 08869-0000
***Director: Irene Isaac V MD.
*Test: ABs.CD8-CD57+ Lymphs
**Result: 30 L  /ul
**Limit: 60 - 360
***Your immune system
*Test: White Blood Cell (WBC) Count
**Result: 3.7 L  /x10E3/uL
**Limits: 4.0 - 10.5
*Test: Glucose, Serum
**Restul: 55 L  mg/dl
**Limits: 65 - 99
***This is not always but can be related to lyme disease, hypoglicimia (Spelling) is low blood sugar. Aside from Acide Reflux, having low blood sugar causes a huge problem; one requires you not to eat so much, and the other requires you to eat frequently to replenish protien that produces Glucose.
*Test: Lyme, Western Bolt, Serum / Lyme AB IGG by WB
**Result: P58 Ab. Present
***This means the disease, is in fact in my blood.
***Note: An equivocal of positive EIA result followed by a negative Wester Bolt Result, is considered NEGATIVE. An equivocal or positive EIA result followed by a positive Western Bolt is considered POSITIVE by the CDC. I am not a doctor, so if anyone would like to further explaine the results, please feel free.
 Additional information may be found at Www.Kdoqi.com
 Big Boss Ocelot  19:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: LabCorp

message: While I can see how the word "epidemic" in the ecology section might appear POV at first glance, I propose restoring it - perhaps with a geographic qualifier - because the word is not controversial in endemic areas in the U.S.  See  (NY State Dept. of Health),  (Yale/CDC pub– ‘conservative’ authors) and .  
A recent New York Times article ["More Awareness, More Cases"] quotes CDC statistics demonstrating that Lyme is still very much on the increase (2005 numbers: 34% increase in Connecticut, 23% increase in New Jersey).  The numbers have increased 25-fold in the U.S. since reporting began in 1982.  The most recent incidence estimate in the 12 states with the highest incidence is 27.4/100,000, comparable to the current incidence of HIV in the U.S.  And if one takes into account the approximately tenfold undercount the CDC admits to (because of poor Lyme reporting practices), this number becomes 274/100,000.  In some hyperendemic counties, the number is still ten times higher than this multistate average. (These numbers only include cases that meet CDC criteria, not seronegative or otherwise controversial cases).  It’s also easy to verify that the disease is spreading beyond the original focal regions along the coastal northeast.  For example, the CDC reports that Lyme spirochetes are now in ticks in the Chicago metro area [].  (I hope to eventually add some of this information to the epidemiology section of the article.)
Incidentally, the fact that several ILADS members are quoted as experts in the [NY Times article] suggests that User:Frpaneloux’s comments under #POV are rather off the mark.
--Bapb 21:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Epidemic

message: On whether to add Lyme article to WikiProject Dogs - the article doesn't yet include information on dogs, but perhaps it should.  In endemic areas, Lyme is a primary concern for dog owners; it is recognized as potentially chronic and sometimes fatal (less controversy than with humans).  The page currently has at least one reference in the microbiology section by Straubinger et al. that specifically pertains to dogs, documenting persistent infection. Would be nice to see more (eg. there's a vaccine available for dogs now, though I don't know much about it) and include in WikiProject Dogs .--Bapb 23:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't get me wrong, I certainly wouldn't object to information being added on dogs (or other animals, I've heard it can cause problems with horses, too) and lyme disease. I just don't think we should put the WikiProject template on this page. I think these banners should only be added when the respective WikiProject can actually contribute to the whole article, not just a small part of it, otherwise we could have dozens of WikiProject banners on this page. But that's just my personal opinion of course. --Conti|✉ 00:04, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I misunderstood the intent of the WikiProjects; now I see what you're saying. (Apart from that issue, I hope someone can add content specifically pertaining to dogs.) -Bapb 22:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Dogs

message: One paragraph under "Diagnosis" reads as follows...
Diagnosis
The most reliable method of diagnosing Lyme disease is a clinical exam by an experienced practitioner, taking into account symptoms, history, and possible exposure to ticks in an endemic area. Clinicians who diagnose strictly based on the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) Case Definition for Lyme are in error, as the CDC explicitly states that this definition is intended for surveillance purposes only, and is "not intended to be used in clinical diagnosis."[76][77]
For purposes of clarity, the second sentence should read "Clinicians who diagnose strictly based on the narrow and restrictive U.S. Centers For Disease Control (CDC) Case Definition...etc.
Domingo11 05:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CDC surveillance case clarification 

message: for purposes of clarity.  more brevity is needed in this article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.82.232.151 (talk) 04:25, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  separate article should be made for borrelia separate from lyme disease 

message: I nominated this article as I was really impressed with it's quality. I ran across it while researching an article I recently started on Wyatt Sexton. Incidentally that article may be of interest to people working on this one as it shows a fairly famous example of a well known person suffering from the disease. I also was wondering if it was worth inclusion into this article maybe as an example or footnote. I'll leave that to the editors of this article to decide though. Quadzilla99 18:18, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the references have no title, no retrieval, no nothing except a URL with brackets (#107, #99), others (#121-#124) have nothing except a title and a URL, and the last two sections have no inline cites whatsoever. For those you haven't looked that far, that would include the Epidemiology section(!). Given what's described in the controversy section, there should definitely be some claims there. Gah.--Rmky87 00:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've never worked on the article I just saw it while browsing and thought it was GA quality. Quadzilla99 02:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: GA Nomination

message: Congratulations on good article status. This article is very good and someone should put this up for featured article status.--Jorfer 01:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Article  

message: Some subarticles need to be broken out of this to reduce the size. It's 120 KB! Huge, takes forever to load. The guideline is only 32 KB; this should at least be scaled back to 60 KB or so. Everyking 06:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've tagged it with . --AAA! (AAAA) 08:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I've splitted off The Lyme controversy. It can be found here. However, you might need to fix it up a bit. I don't really know what to do. --AAA! (AAAA) 09:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Split it up

message: I have re-inserted the section in "History"  outlining the intimate relationship between the history of Lyme disease and the participation of the biowarfare establishment. The facts and research dollar figures that I presented are important to a full and balanced understanding of the history of Lyme disease, which up until now, has been written primarily by biologists who have been intimately bound up in the biowarfare industry.  The historical view of bioweaponeers is at best, biased and it is of the UTMOST  importance to present the views of others such as respected lawyers like John Loftus of the United States Justice Department, and Michael Carroll, a practicing attorney and author-- if this entry to be be balanced at all. 
The presentation of the facts  adds balance to the article,  and has nothing to do with the weasel words, "conspiracy," and "dubious"  -- words that illustrates the author's understanding of propaganda techniques, but do not refute the facts presented by Loftus and Carroll.   
Two very prominent authors in the legal community have presented these facts.  The first, whom I have cited, Michael Christopher Carroll, quotes numerous sources regarding the extensive and poorly supervised tick research on Plum Island.  Carroll's book, Lab 257: The Distrubing Story of the Government's Secret Germ Laboratory,  book was praised by by former Senator Lowell Weicker, former Governor Mario Cuomo and Popular Science magazine, and I believe its information adds balance to the previously unbalanced historical information about the emergence of Lyme. 
The editor needs to cite facts refuting that bioweapons scientists have been, and continue to be intimately involved in Lyme history.   I have already shown factually that McSweegan, Barbour, Klempner and Baker all draw large funds from the bioweapons community, and that they are also all intimately involved in setting Lyme policy.   This is an important fact that needs to stay in the history section.
Freyfaxi 13:23, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PREVIOUS HISTORICAL MATERIAL WAS UNBALANCED 

message: WHY WAS THE HISTORY EDIT SPUN OFF TO A SEPARATE PAGE CALLED MILITARY HISTORY? 
I have provided credible sources from reliable authors OUTSIDE of the community of bioweapons professionals. This should ADD balance and subtract BIAS.  Why was this credible information relegated to a different page?  I have put this blaanced information back into the main page to increase objectivity and reduce the bias in the history section.
Why is this credible historical  information so threatening to the bioweaponeers  who monoplize this Lyme Disease page? 
Really -- this IS starting to look like a conspiracy.... this page a very unbalanced and BIASED and it needs to be rectified with perspectives from those OUTSIDE of the bioweapons community-- like Michael Carroll and John Loftus.
It is clear that the current history section is biased in favor of ONE weak explanation for the epidemic--- it provides a one sided view of Lyme history -- one that fits conveniently with the goals and objectives of the bioweapons community-- that is, to minimize this epidemic in the minds of the public so that, like Walter Reed Army Medical--  no one is held accountable for the mess. Sadly , Wiki is playing right into the hands of those who want the information "spun" to support their financial gains.
The chronic nature of borrelia  infection has been known since at least the 1970s-- yet Wiki editors continue to support those here who deny this information --- using poorly designed and biased research citations-- and omitting  research that counters the one sided views expressed here..
Relapsing fever has been studied as a bioweapon for decades-- (just read the book Germs by Judith Miller)  and its serious chronic nature has been known for that long-- yet the biologists who dictate this site deny it.  
I would ask the editors to consider keeping my history edit where it is ---- to add balance and fairness to the perspective.  Right now, the article is almost completely one-sided in favor of men who have received billions of dollars in biological weapons research money.  I personally have a neighbor who has Bell's palsy from Lyme, and her daughter was born with congenital Lyme disease and she is stunted.  My other neighbor has MS, and my doctor has treated a 27 years so called  "MS"  patient with antibiotics, which restored her to complete health.  She had a chronic persistent LYME infection!   She is going to sue Presbyterian Medical, which agrees with the outdated guidlines presented in this Lyme page right here.
I also suffer chronic Lyme arthritis and neurological issues -- yet my insights and well reserached facts and publications   are deleted  by people who know little  about this disease, and by men who receive HUGE grant moneys from the defense and biological weapons industry. Shame.  
Please, editors-- be careful-- you are dealing with many many people's lives.  This epidemic, which has spread out from its epicenter near Plum Island has now grown to the entire country.  Of course the bioweaponeers  don't want the truth to be published---- that is why they are fighting like hell to maintain control of the information flow here-- so their grant money is not threatened and their offensive weapons community is not held accountable for its sloppy biased, and spin filled research-- and its germ accidents that needlessly hurt thousands.
 —The preceding [[Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pagesFreyfaxi 03:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  HISTORY SPINOFF IS  BIASED 

message: I was wondering why in some places it stresses that only the nymph stage of the tick can transmit lyme disease, whereas in other areas, and in picture captions, it says both the nymph and the adult cycle can trasmit the disease.  As I have no knowledge about this, I cannot correct it either way, but I believe that someone should.
:The sentence stating "It is important to note that only the nymph can transmit the disease as adult ticks do not become infected" is incorrect. The CDC page linked to states that adult ticks do not become infected through feeding, but whether or not that's true, they can already have the bacteria in their systems prior to reaching the adult stage, and from what I've read on the topic, estimates are that roughly 20% of Lyme disease infections are from adult ticks, with the rest coming from those in nymph stages. 'Kash 16:42, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've reworded that sentence accordingly. 'Kash 16:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancies 

message: Someone had written "Put oil on the tick and it will fall off because it can not breathe." on the removal section. I removed it, because there already is a standard procedure to remove them, which is the best. Alternatives would be confusing. Besides, the time it takes for a tick to drown is longer than the time to pull it out - perhaps it can even breathe from the blood oxygen. This delay increases the risk of infection. Mikael Häggström 07:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal by drowning with oil 

message: The article is very confused and rambling. I got a better idea of the disease from the NHS.
One question which doesn't seem to be answered by both Wikipedia and the NHS is:If the disease is identified early, and it is treated in the standard way with antibiotics, does the treatment completely get rid of the disease, or does it just lay dormant like, say, herpes. If it recurs, do the same symptoms present themselves?
Thanks
--Rhubarbandmustard 09:30, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear article, and question