Talk:Chronic Lyme disease

"Harassment of researchers" section is undue

It is inappropriate to have a section dedicated to a single incident from 2001 that's more or less worthless information. It doesn't help that it's framed to villainize people. It is undue and should be removed. 76.178.169.118 (talk) 18:43, 31 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for your comment. I think the incident is significant because Allen Steere was one of the discoverer's of Lyme disease, so it's part of the history and not undue. However, I've added some more references, including about another researcher who Medscape reported on how he received "a regular stream of abuse and threats". I think the article is probably missing other context and other details which could be added, but this is a start. ScienceFlyer (talk) 08:10, 4 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
what about harrasment towards doctors and scientists who proved the chronic phase is real? Burruscano, Perrone, Ghouzzi and many more 46.193.129.91 (talk) 22:15, 28 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
there is already a whole article devoted to that! Hornpipe2 (talk) 14:41, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The relationship between chronic lyme disease and post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome

If you look at the more recently cited articles like Wong et al (February 2022). "A Review of Post-treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome and Chronic Lyme Disease for the Practicing Immunologist". they state that "PTLD is a subset of a broader term “chronic Lyme disease"". There is a lack of clarity about what causes PTLD (and CLD) but that does not warrant the dismissive tone of this article.

Does this article really conform to "Neutral Point of View?" Every sentence serves as an attempt to argue that Chronic Lyme disease is bunk. How can it be bunk if PTLD is real and PTLD falls under the umbrella term CLD?

This tone is wholly innappropriate for Wikipedia. Simply report that the term has been used to sell bad science in the past and that the *term* has been rejected. (for sociological, not scientific reasons in my opinion). 193.157.209.87 (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There is some terminological confusion in the real world. Wikipedia aligns with the most common mainstream usage and this article is about the quackery/scam thing. Bon courage (talk) 10:01, 4 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Can you back up making this distinction with some actual research article quotes from more recently than 2015? The example I have shown is a 2022 review article from Yale pediatrics and seems pretty authoritative.
Again, the quackery scam thing is an important part of the story, but I don't understand the gaslighting in this article that there is *nothing* to the idea that lyme disease can cause chronic issues, that the people who believe this are misled or desperate, when the current medical consensus has accepted this idea. That is also a really interesting part of this CLD story. 2001:2020:323:D269:40CF:6B26:E20A:4082 (talk) 15:32, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is the article about the "quackery scam thing". Bon courage (talk) 15:33, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many people who have "chronic lyme disease" have serious medical issues. The problem is that they probably don't have or have ever had Lyme disease. Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:34, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right. This[1] is something recent on the phenomenon and on the terminological problems (which we have to manage). As with several other types of health fraud the fraudsters have deliberately muddled the vocabulary (see also: detoxification, leaky gut, etc etc). Bon courage (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many desperate people with psychological disturbances or chronic lateness claim to "must have ADHD", this does not mean that the ADHD article is entirely a discussion of the misusage of the term.
What fraction of the people who think they have chronic lyme disease have never had Lyme disease? Does anyone know? If you have data on this Hemiauchenia please share. It could be low, or it could be high, but it doesnt really seem to matter for the purposes of the article. It is not wikipedia's job to predict the type 1 and type 2 errors of readers.
Bon courage your linked news article is conciliatory in its reporting and states "whatever the terminology"... Overall, after reading it, I am even less convinced that a clear distinction between "real" PTLD and "fake" CLD exists whether it be for clinicians, researchers, or patients. 193.157.209.37 (talk) 10:39, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The point is an encyclopedia deals in topics, not terminology. There is a huge topic of lyme fraud/quackery; this is the article about that. Of course, other names can be proposed but we're not going to be following the WP:PROFRINGE gambit of using terminological confusion as a lever to trigger knowledge confusion. There's a hat note at the topic of the article for any reader who is confused. Bon courage (talk) 12:23, 8 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The article title is "chronic lyme disease". If you state "its really an article about lyme fraud" the burden of terminological proof falls on you to show that that is what the article should be aboutWikipedia:Criteria.
This article, as is, reads with an agenda. Maybe that agenda is the noble goal of discrediting fraud, but its very out of place in a wikipedia article. Maybe the best solution is to simply deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect to PTLD, with a few sentences in that article mentioning the prevalence of fraud and its association with this term? 91.186.71.4 (talk) 07:30, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:COMMONNAME for the 'condition' which is the locus of the fraud is 'chronic lyme disease'. It might be argued that simply 'Chronic lyme' is a better title. Bon courage (talk) 08:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chronic_Lyme_disease