Introduction: Lyme Disease Science And Pseudoscience
When I began this blog, part of it was in response to The Chicago Tribune 's article, "Chronic Lyme: A dubious diagnosis". And while I did a fair deconstruction of it of my own, I think Paul Raeburn's original comment on the piece pretty much captured my opinion, too: "Again and again, Callahan and Tsouderos give far more space to advocates making questionable claims than they do to experts who refute those claims, allowing the serious case for chronic Lyme disease, whatever that might be, to be buried under the dubious claims of advocates. The reporters go on and on impuguning patients and advocates without ever telling us whether there is a debate among legitimate experts about whether Lyme disease might assume a chronic form." Raeburn's remarks did not go without criticism from others. Orac, of Respectful Insolence blog, pointed out that Raeburn was demonstrating that he supported false balance in reporting - that as long as the evidence against chronic Lyme disease outweighed the evidence in favor of it, there was no way to give it equal time. (More on this in a later post.) Since reading the Tribune article, I've read a number of articles, blogs, and editorials which questioned if not denied the existence of chronic Lyme disease, such as Hoofnagle's Denialism blog entry on chronic Lyme being a fake disease ; White Coat Underground's "Lyin about Lyme" entry; The Lippard Blog's "Science-based Medicine Conference, part 5: Chronic Lyme" ; "A Critical Appraisal of Chronic Lym...
Introduction: Lyme Disease Science And Pseudoscience
.png)
