User talk:Freyfaxi

Lyme Disease page controvery additions

you are taking no opportunity to discuss your additions on the talk page. please do this, or they will just be removed each time you try to re-add them with no explanation. the controversy page is ideal for this topic and you can link the history blurb to that page as well. currently, the lyme page is very big, and isn't a great spot for trying to slip in opinionated rants that likely more serve to discredit lyme sufferers than defend them. you can mention what you believe from a neutral perspective, currently it looks more like propaganda than anything else. you must also give sources on wikipedia if you do not want your stuff deleted. 206.248.168.241 21:26, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Just wondering why you feel the need to be anonymous-- which, together with inflammatory words like "rant..." does make you seem a bit like a troll-- and certainly NOT neutral......Perhaps one should practice what one preaches when it comes to both propaganda and neutrality?

I posted my reasons for the additions to the history section on the talk page. The information on Lyme, Plum Island and biowarfare has been published now by reputable sources for several years, and it is time that people interested in Lyme should be able to find this information by typing "Lyme Disease" on the Wikipedia search engine. When Lyme Disease is typed in to the search engine now, neither the ILADS guidelines, nor the bioweapons issues are readily available-- which is a form of censorship.

I know that antibiotics have helped my chronic Lyme very much, although i am not cured. My doctor-- who is not a part of the bioweapons establishment, and treats hundreds of patients with chronic Lyme--- does not feel that antibiotic treatment is the least bit controversial. Sadly, however, most of the research money is going to bioweaponeers-- and they wish to suppress the extent of the epidemic for their own reasons, in additiona to controlling the flow of information about this illness.

Perhaps you are using the word "propaganda," because the page as currently drafted is "propaganda..." ---- it conspicuously omits the military history of Lyme and the curious relationship between Lyme researchers and the biowarfare industry-- and it also omits the 1976 finding that Borrelia is a parsitcial organism that invades the brain and often survives intensive treatment in the brain-- contrary to the currently accepted "propaganda" put forth on the page?

Anyway, thanks for your comment. I am not afraid to identify who I am-- and I wish you would not be afraid of identifying yourself-- because an anonymous IP is kind of creepy. Freyfaxi 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

If you are new and want to reply to a user, please click on the "discussion" tab, ("talk page") not the "user Page", as you did to 206.248.168.241. I removed it, as that's not the place it belongs. You can re-post your question or your comment on the "talk page" here: User_talk:206.248.168.241 Please check out the links below for help on how things work. It's a lot to learn too. :) But, it's fun.

I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! Jeeny (talk) 20:47, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme Disease Military history

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Lyme Disease Military history, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 06:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I wanted to respond to your statements about me on Talk:Lyme disease military history. Wikipedia is a fundamentally anonymous forum, and I don't think a debate about personal qualifications is useful, since there is essentially no way of verifying them. I provided the information that I am a medical student on my user page more as a biographical/interest note than as a claim to special authority. It's really not appropriate for you to make assumptions about my views or motivations based on my level of professional training. I continue to feel that Lyme disease military history is an odd and unsatisfactory title for the content you have written and I will make further suggestions on that page. Let's try to stay focused on improving Wikipedia's content rather than engaging in personal attacks. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rustavo: My main intent here is to improve Wikipedia's content, and this is why the information in this page should be presented in the history section on the Main Lyme disease page, which is biased at present, since it is written primaily from the point of view of microbiologists, many of whom are on the bioweapons payroll --- with no input whatsoever from historians, lawyers, patients or ILADS.

I simply wanted to explain that the Lyme disease debate is not the sole property of microbiologists and medical students-- when a debate reflects only one perspective, as is the case in the history seection of the main Lyme disease page, it becomes unbalanced and slanted in favor of that particular group -- which is against Wikipedia guidelines.

Historians such as Michael Carroll and Justice department lawyers such as John Loftus provide a ***balanced ****perspective to Lyme disease history. Up till now, Lyme history has been described by microbiolgists -- many in the military and bioweapons research field--- who have no proof as to why the Lone Star suddenly appeared in Connecticut, and no scientific prof whatsoever as to the cause of this epidemic. All they present is a hypothesis about the spread, with no proof. I am simply presenting additional facts provided by reputable authors Michael Carroll and John Loftus. Both of these writers have stellar credentials. Mario Cuomo and Senator Weicker both gave Carroll's book an excellent review-- and neither of these men are conspiracy theorists or lowbrows.. I have also simply pointed out that there is a very close hisotrical relationship between individuals working on Lyme disease and the large budgetary allocations for bioweapons programs. This is public service information and it deserves to be in Wikipedia. Thanks, and good luck in your medical career.18:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have nominated Lyme disease military history for deletion due to the concerns I have expressed on the talk page. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyme disease military history. I understand that you have worked hard on this content, and I have tried to suggest ways in which some of it could be incorporated into an article consistent with Wikipedia's policies, but I do not feel it is appropriate in its current form. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 04:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. It would be appreciated if you would not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Lyme disease military history. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. Carlosguitar 22:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contributing to same page as both registered and unregistered user

Freyfaxi: It appears to me that you have begun editing Lyme disease military history and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lyme disease military history without signing in to your account, so that only your ip address, 69.120.212.3 appears. I am making this assumption based on the language used and claims made in those posts, which are very similar to yours. Please be advised that Wikipedia has a "one user, one vote" rule, and contributing to the same controversial page or vote under both a user name and an unregistered IP address could be considered sockpuppetry. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 02:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I AM OUTGUNNED BY YOUR BILLIONS

Hi Rustavo: The tactics that you mention--sock puppetry-- are what you practice-- not me.

How much are you being paid to monitor this page so frequently and who do you work for? Why worry so much about the history of Lyme disease if you are a doctor-- seriously-- why not busy yourself finding a cure for neuroborreliosis rather than restricting facts about it?

It's quite clear that you and several others here are putting a huge amount of energy, time and money into discrediting a well researched and sourced page and that you are being paid quite ***a lot** of money to do so.

You cannot hide the truth about Lyme disease and its connection to the biowarfare establishment for ever. The grant money and research history of these scientists is public knowledge and the information on tick experimentation there was verified by the Plum Island lab director. The book "Deliberate Release" was authored by the NIH lyme director in an almost "catch me if you can" taunt against the Lyme victims that had him removed from his position at NIH.

The Walter Reed-like truth about the history of this disease will eventually come out when enough people are infected with this disease-- which is happening on rapid scale now. I have been sick now for 15 years and I am tired of the games that people who suppress the truth are playing with lives. I am not being paid to write this well researched -- I am just a citizen who is tired of government games, cover ups and what is now beginning to look like a propaganda attempt to save quite a few scientists' hides and misplaced research dollars.

These are the same McCarthesque tactics that were used against Michael Carroll to try to discredit this fine lawyer ----and against Justice department Lawyer John Loftus who received death threats for publication of his book The Belarus Secret..

Restavo-- censorship is NOT an American value. It is the duty of citizens to provide information on poorly operated facilities that affect the public health. I have done so here in volumes. Please go ahead and censor it along with your friends -- but the truth about this epidemic will come out eventually. I hope you are proud of yourself. Shame. Freyfaxi 10:04, 14 May 2007 (UTC) 10:09, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I've said before, I am not trying to censor anyone. I've explained my objections to Lyme disease military history, and I assure you there is nothing more sinister than my feeling that the title and one-sided treatment of the material on that page are not up to wikipedia's standards. I continue to hope we can find a way to appropirately include your content on Wikipedia (perhaps as a page on the book "Lab 257" as others have suggested), but your attempts to interfere with the AfD process by repeatedly deleting maintenance tags is not helpful, and since you persisted in deleting them as both a registered and unregistered user after receiving warnings, I felt compelled to report your violation of Wikipedia's rules (see WP:3RR). I promise you, you will get much better results by cooperating with your fellow Wikipedians than by trying to sabotage the process. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 11:30, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for persistently removing the Articles for deletion tag on Lyme disease military history after having been warned that it was unacceptable. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Sam Blacketer 11:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer 11:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article does an excellent job of providing numerous footnotes and information that the public requires

Wikipedia claims to be objective but it is quickly losing its reputation as such. When an organization has a big enough staff and budget, pages that present a well researched alternative perspective are deleted for a range of silly reasons which only have to do with the fact that a certain cabal of individuals does not want the well researched information to be available to the public. This information is true, well researched and interesting, and it deserves to be placed here in Wikipedia in the context of a Lyme disease article. If the article is deleted, the objectivity and neutrality of this encylopaedia seriously in doubt. I am a single individual and I do not have time to mobilize the many Lyme patients and doctors who agree with me for a edit war here. Please take a look at the many footnotes and sources presented in the article, and think carefully about the possibility that one group's perspective (government microbiologists and defense grantees) is being presented with respect to Lyme disease. Also think about the dangers that this type of research, unchecked with publicly available ifnormation--- poses to the public. Please think carefully your role in suppressing this information. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Freyfaxi (talk • contribs).

Due to your promise to me not to edit disruptively, I have unblocked. Please assume good faith about other contributors, which means not accusing them of being paid to adopt their stances. Sam Blacketer 13:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

______________

Thank you Sam.. you are a fair, righteous and noble leader.

Please watch this short video clip to learn more about the suffering of Lyme victims, the needless persecution of hundreds of American Lyme doctors and denial of the epidemic by a well organized group.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=889831055

I don't know if the originator of this dispute is being paid to oppose the release of this well documented information, but I do wonder why he is also disputing the associated Erich Traub page so aggressively. I sent a letter to the anti defamation league regarding what I consider to be a weasel controversy regarding the Traub page here and asking for their assstance with that page. I won't remove the dispute tag there either as I have been informed of the rules, but I really must say that it is a inexplicable dispute-- and it does seem to point at a collabortive effort to suppress documented information --- launched by one deep pocketed group in this Lyme debate.

Also, I have sent a copy of my original draft of the Lyme disease military history page to Connecticut Attorney general Blumenthal for his staff's review in the current legal action regarding IDSA, along with a note confirming that the individual originating the dispute has a Norwalk, Connecticut IP address-- where some of the funny business reagrding Lyme "controversy" seems to originate.

Thanks for your fair treatment of this very controversial issue. 69.120.212.35 16:35, 14 May 2007 (UTC)16:44, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Erich Traub nomination for deletion

Freyfaxi: I think I can see where some of your frustration is coming from. As I mentioned before, I had nothing to do with that nomination, which I now see appears to have been made by a new, unregistered user who did not follow the proper procedure. I will support you in removing the erroneous AfD tag from that page, and have left a post to that effect on Talk:Erich Traub. As I mentioned before, I know you have worked hard on the content that appears on Lyme disease military history, and I want to help you find an appropriate page on which to include at least some of that content. Since the consensus on the AfD seems to be that it will be deleted, I suggest you make a copy of the content on your own subpage, such as User:Freyfaxi/Lyme content so that it is not lost. Good luck, and please trust me that I am here to help wikpedia, not to censor you. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 16:46, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame

Those who are responsible for deleting this well researched, heavily footnoted page should be ashamed of themselves. The threat to the world from biowarfare experimentation and genetically engineered organisms was demonstrated by Nobel laureate Joshua Lederberg, who won the prize on the basis of his work with plasmids, and who once asked "when will it end..?

"It" will only end when citizens publish evidence of compelling government incompetence as I have done here, and when the government is held accountable for its mistakes involving release of these organisms. It is obvious that there is a well orchestrated coverup going on about the true origins of the Lyme epidemic near Plum Island.

I personally do not think that poorly paid government bureaucrats or Science Times editors have the competence or moral integrity to manage weapons as powerful as these, but it seems that a large cabal here at Wikipedia thinks otherwise. I only hope that in 5 or ten years, when your loved ones become sick from something that a sloppy scientist in a competing lab has erringly or deliberately released, that it is not too late for you and your families to get treatment if indeed it is possible to get treatment. No American citizen should be denied access to information and treatment and citizens should not become ill as a result of military incompetence.

We do not after all, live in Russia where citizens are treated as expendable, and information is censored.

Or do we?

13:59, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Lyme disease controversy

Hi again. First I wanted to apologize for reverting another one of your edits (albeit with good reason) - I am not looking for conflict with you, but since you apparently made this particular contribution without signing in, I did not recongize that it was yours. You asked about my interest in this subject - well I'm not really obligated to answer, but here goes: I am interested in medicine (as a medical student) and I monitor the talk page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. Recently, another user requested help in revising the page on Chronic fatigue syndrome, so I decided to help out with that project. While discussing how to handle controversy on that page, a user mentioned that they had dealt with inappropriate or non-mainstream content on the page Lyme disease by creating separate pages, such as your Lyme disease military history. Since that is a clear violation of Wikipedia's rules on POV forking, I decided to check out the forks off of that page, to determine whether or not they were appropriate encyclopedic subjects. I really have no special knowlege of or interest in Lyme disease, but I know the rules of Wikipedia: it is not a sopbox and not a place to voice an original argument. It is NOT appropriate to use Wikipedia to advocate for what you believe to be a neglected or under-appreciated viewpoint. There are many other forums on which you could do that. Wikipedia is encyclopedia, and can only reflect the generally recognized knowlege about a subject, as well as fairly representing prominant controversies, without giving undue weight to less mainstream points of view. Good luck in your future contributions - as I have said before, I would be happy to assist you in writing an NPOV article on the book Lab 257. -Rustavo^{Talk/Contribs} 03:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Edward McSweegan

Edward McSweegan, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Edward McSweegan satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward McSweegan and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Edward McSweegan during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. — Shinhan < talk > 15:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did a major rewrite to the article. You should realize that you could have caused Wikipedia some real problems. Having someone create an account just to complain about an article is serious business. I suggest you get off the soapbox and contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Blueboy 96 16:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the problem

The edits you made to the article were plagiarized from the source you cite--a definite no-no here. Not only that, but the most recent edits you made were completely unsourced. I suggest you tread carefully here and get off the soapbox. Blueboy 96 20:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check Wiki's Policy on Public Domain

Its obvious my friend that you have little experience in journalism. When an article is cited and quoted, it is NOT plagiarism

The edits are fully sourced from a PUBLIC DOMAIN GOVERNMENT SOURCE, with quotations and notes. I have added numerous footnotes.

Personally, I have no byline, and the article is not published under my name--- I simply used and sourced a public domain source that wiki's own policy says is justified. It fully sourced and atrributed from the public domain and needs to be kept in the article. Where else would the information be available if not from his employer?

I suggest that you take a step back from your somewhat threatening tone since you obviously have not read Wiki's policy on public domain information that is sourced and quoted.

Homeland Security

You should be thankful Homeland Security stopped you and checked your baggage. As soon as the terrorists know whose baggage gets a free pass, then they'll know how to penetrate our security. How? It's easy. All the bad guys will need to do is hold your grandchildren hostage - maybe decapitate one right in front of your face - and threaten to kill the rest if you don't use your "free pass" to smuggle one of their bombs on a plane. Think of all the bank managers whose families have been held hostage and even killed in order to gain their cooperation in robbing their own banks, and terrorists make bank robbers look like Boy Scouts by comparison. Yes, Homeland Security has done you and your family a huge favor by stopping you and searching your bags. Now - do you really want them to stop? Rklawton 15:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2008

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Lyme disease controversy. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Nappymonster (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme disease controversy violates NPOV. Please cease reverts and work with us in the community to obtain a more balanced page.

Hi Nappy--

The Lyme disease controversy page as you have reverted it, reads like a brochure for the IDSA and, as such, is in violation of every known Wikipedia neutrality policy... and its probably worthy of a lawsuit in its many unsubstantiated false claims..... so my urgent advice to you is to diligently work with the community for a more balanced, less biased page....

The page makes no mention of the many conflicts of interest held by IDSA affiliated patent holders Steere and Yale for the inaccurate diagnostic test for Lyme and for the failed Lyme vaccine, LYMERIX. The Blumenthal legal action against IDSA's Lyme treatment guidelines process is scarcely mentioned, if at all. I will work toward helping you to improve this page if you want to cooperate with me and many others on Wikipedia who believe this page is not neutral in its point of view and is out of date, especially in light of the evidence presented for persistence of infection in the Lyme disease microbiology page-- These two pages are now completely inconsistent in their information.

Please read the page on Lyme disease microbiology: persistence of infection and you will understand why i say that this Controversy page is off base, and lacks credibility.

If you continue to revert my edits with no explanation for the inconsistency between these two pages and with little analysis and attention paid to the rectifying the bias, I will be forced into reporting you for violating Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. The IDSA has been investigated by the Connecticut Attorney general, and its treatment guidelines are not mainstream as the previous editor claims. You give no explanation for all of these inconsistencies.

Hey... I don't want to make a stink here with your higher ups..... but ... you took a pledge to be a neutral editor..... and simply hitting revert button is not an acceptable practice in a Wiki editor.. Thanks Freyfaxi (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 Freyfaxi (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)freyfaxi[reply]

I'm not saying the version i reverted to was perfect, However your revision made the article's NPOV status so much worse, I viewed it as vandalism. If you don't agree, revert it and i won't revert it back (the last thing i want is an edit war), however I strongly ask that you view some of the diff before doing so, and if you do, discuss it on the talk page. For example:

"Although" becomes "While there is no doubt"
"some controversy" becomes "Considerable controversy"
You removed a considerable a large section and replaced it with 2 simple sentances that didn't go into any detail about them.

Thanks, --Nappymonster (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

your explicit threat of edit warring at [1] is now being discussed at the AN/I noticeboard [2]. 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Freyfaxi,

There is a mis-understanding in your recent edit at Lyme disease controversy. Persistent infection is not conteroversial, the prevalence of it and the efficacy of antibiotics against it is the controversy. The four big medical studies show antibiotics are not effective and the recruitment process for the studies says it is very rare and most chronic lyme is self-diagnose with no evidence of past or present Lyme. Please work with us and please do not saying editors are from IDSA or getting paid. I do not connect fron IDSA or CDC or any Lyme disease company, I do not think other people are either. Thank you. RetroS1mone talk 23:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

blocked for disruption

I have blocked you 31 hours for this disruptive edit summary. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for disruptive editing with a threat to edit war. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GWEN: This Lyme Disease Controversy page in current form is a mess. It violates NPOV and requires a civilized and thorough "edit war" to: RESOLVE MANY SERIOUS NPOV ISSUES, MISINFORMATION, AUTHORS OPINION FLAWS, LACK OF FACTS, ETC.... PLEASE DO NOT DISREGARD OR BLOCK ME AGAIN UNTIL YOU HAVE DISCUSSED THESE ISSUES THOUGHTFULLY AND IN DETAIL..... ON THE TALK PAGE AND WITH THE ADMINISTRATORS.. I KNOW THIS PAGE IS A PAIN, BUT... ITS GOING TO TAKE WORK TO RESOLVE THE MANY INACCURACIES AND NPOV PROBLEMS.. AND BLOCKING ME AND ELENA IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL WIKPEDIAN SOLUTION... THANKS

Here are the issues which were never properly addressed, as I had politely requested... and each of my footnoted edits was vandalized.. and the page reverts back to a glossy promo brochure for IDSA...

The page makes no mention of

1) the many conflicts of interest held by IDSA affiliated patent holders Steere and Yale for the inaccurate diagnostic test for Lyme and for the failed Lyme vaccine, LYMERIX which was withdrawn from the market due to the serious damage and lawsuits it caused.

2) The page does not cover the debate over the inaccuracies in the current diagnostic test... yet instead says that most chronic patients were "not diagnosed" with Lyme. The "lack of diagnoses" statement is the authors opinion-- in violation of Wikipedia's policy... yet he keeps editing this misinformation into the piece... while taking out footnotes? What is going on here? Bell's palsy ----where half your face collapses ---is not imaginary. To say that patients are undiagnosed is simply false and unsupported by facts.. and very insulting to those of us who are sick and to the professional doctors who treat and diagnose us. Wikipedia needs to include FACT, not opinion or spin from scientists who are under legal scrutiny for conflict of interest..

3)The Blumenthal legal action against IDSA's Lyme treatment guidelines process is scarcely mentioned, if at all. The page claims that ILADS is a fringe outfit, when clearly Bluemthal has legal concerns about IDSA guidelines, not ILADS doctors!!

4) The page makes no mention of IDSAs waffling and changing stance over the past 15 years... first they recommended 10 days of antibiotics-- now its 3 weeks-- a very long course of drugs for such an "easy to cure" infection... Then they said chronic infection did not exist... now they say chronic infection is possible but antibiotics can't treat it..although patients say they often get remission from serious neurological symptoms with antibiotics-- as I did. This is more waffling than John Kerry!!

5) The page makes no mention of the lawsuits made by IDSA affiliates against ILADS doctors, and the legal harassment of many fine doctors who are desperately treating Lyme disease in the field, although the authors spin the debate by focusing on patient "harassment of Dr. Steere." Again... this is biased and it is spin that violate NPOV.

6) Footnotes regarding persistence of infection are routinely deleted,

7) The scientific "studies" mentioned concerning antibiotics are all seriously flawed, were short term, and were conducted by many of the same individuals who are now required by Attorney General Blumethal to revisit the IDSA guidelines due to potential conflicts of interest with big insurance and pharmaceutical companies... this is important information that editors dismiss.

In short, these scientists goofed up and may have engaged in fraudulent science, and Wik editors need to understand that these scientists' opinions are under legal scrutiny by the Attorney general, and should not be taken as automatic "fact." ALso, reporting their misinformation as "fact" could ultimately result in a lawsuit against Wikipedia.. You need to make this page more balanced for Wikipedia's future sake!

I will work toward helping you to improve this page if you want to cooperate with me and many others on Wikipedia who believe this page is not neutral in its point of view and is out of date, especially in light of the evidence presented for persistence of infection in the Lyme disease microbiology page-- These two pages are now completely inconsistent in their information-- evidence for persistence of infection should be included in the page on Lyme disease controversy and it should be stated that IDSA claimed a lack of persistence and then reverted its opinion. Critiques on the flaws in the scientific method of the so called studies that prove the lack of efficacy of antibiotics also should be included.

I suggest that you work with all of us diligently .. to address the issues I have outlined above... Banning ( I have written two popular pages here) is simply a lazy way out of a difficult problem.. and it is discouraging to those of us who want to make this page more factual and balanced-- and who are repeatedly vandalized in the process.. The many issues I address should assure you of my concern and professionalism.

I am going to undo the recent changes made to my careful edit, and let's have a spirited and thoughtful debate on my points. Thank you...69.120.212.35 (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) SIGNED BY FREYFAXI[reply]

Talk page use

Please stop. If you continue to use talk pages such as Talk:Lyme disease for inappropriate discussion, you may be blocked. MastCell ^Talk 00:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Ray Griffin

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]