As written about here before, there are certain contentious issues that Skeptics like to zero in on and the controversy over Lyme disease is no exception.
For those who may not be aware, there is ongoing debate as to the cause of post-treatment Lyme disease syndrome, or PTLDS which is also referred to as chronic Lyme. Some deny that a persistent infection is at play, even while much research exists that supports this. From the Columbia University website:
When patients are treated shortly after infection, most patients recover fully and do well. For patients whose symptoms return or for those whose initial infection wasn't caught early, the course of illness may be more prolonged and the treatment uncertain. Because we do not yet have a diagnostic test that is a sensitive marker of active infection, patients and doctors are left with tremendous uncertainty regarding whether or not to treat with additional antibiotics. This uncertainty can lead to conflict — with some doctors advocating treatment and others stating further treatment is not indicated. Such conflict can create anxiety in patients as they become uncertain whom to trust — and it can even cause conflict between doctors who hold different perspectives on this illness.
As you can see, this conflict plays out even among physicians. Sadly, it's the patients who end up caught in the middle of this messy business.
In today's example we find a doctor of philosophy who has decided that she is the defacto expert when it comes to Lyme disease, PTLDS and chronic Lyme, and you must never question her authority!
Andrea C. Love, PhD of the Unbiased Science podcast (USP) cohosted with Jessica Steier, DrPH, PMP, shared links to the USP episodes on Lyme disease last weekend and were met with much criticism from Lyme patients. I watched from the sidelines as comments disappeared and people were banned. Links to legitimate research on chronic Lyme were deleted.
Dr. Love is firmly in the camp that denies chronic infection is at play. She is of course entitled to her own opinion on the matter and to express that opinion through social media and through the podcast and website that she contributes to in her personal time, just like I'm doing here.
There are however, a number of issues that are problematic with the USP Facebook/Instagram posts. (Full disclosure: I have not listened to the podcast episodes, and do not address them in this blog.)
First is a specific and unusual assertion made by Dr. Love that is contradictory to the CDC and IDSA guidance on treating Lyme disease.
“As such, there is no thing as a chronic Lyme infection. Even without antibiotics, most infections would self-resolve.”
In the restricted comment section (followers only!) on Instagram Dr. Love also advises a follower that “infection would be cleared by the immune system even without abx treatment."
As I stated earlier, there is quite a bit of controversy over the cause of PTLDS or what it should be called, but one area where everyone agrees is that infections need to be treated with antibiotics! This is not at all in question. It is a universally well-accepted fact that an untreated infection can lead to serious illness and even death. Not treating a patient with such an infection would be considered malpractice.
It is very concerning that Dr. Love, who is not a medical doctor, through her credentials and podcast, is influencing people to not take tick bites seriously or to delay or forgo necessary and lifesaving treatment.
 |
| ***THIS IS A VERY BAD PLAN*** |
Of course in addition to this, Dr. Love is refusing to allow discussion by banning people and restricting comments on the social media pages for the USP - which means this dangerous advice has gone uncorrected.
Communication goes
both ways. If you want to be a science communicator, you best get that right. As a scientist who has elected to use her advanced degree to communicate science to the public, she is responsible to disseminate
accurate information and to allow a
fair exchange with stakeholders. She's also responsible to check her ego at the door in favor of the health and well being of the public and USP's followers.
"Our content educates the general public about scientific matters that have direct relevance to their lives and health-related decisions...We know that now, more than ever, the world needs accurate information. We know misinformation is a threat to people’s lives and the stability of our societies. At Unbiased Science, we fight for truth, health, and the evidence-based way." - Unbiased Science Institute
The fucking irony in calling your organization "Unbiased" and then engaging in this juvenile, arrogant behavior is enough to make Alanis Morissette roll over in her metaphorical grave!
When she's not podcasting,
merching or
Substacking (only $55 per month!), Dr. Love portrays Lyme patients (sick people) as deluded zealots who doctor shop,
drink urine, have "implausible coinfections," are hostile toward evidence-based medicine, have Munchausen's, Munchausen's by Proxy, and are medical child abusers.
A degree is not a free pass to demean and gaslight patients. There is no excuse for this shit.
 |
| Imaginary Lyme biofilms |
The USP echo chamber is not much better. Mz./Mr./Mrs./Ms./Mx. Tooth over here has decided that you and your health are a worthless anecdote and only "fully fleshed" (ew, wtf) research studies matter, but not the ones you post, those get deleted! Fuck off you lousy cripples with your pseudoscience!
It should come as no surprise then, that the USP engage in typical Skeptic behavior when it comes to other areas of science and ethics, not just Lyme. Did you know,
everything is a chemical?
 |
| A popular myth about dose response straight from the chemical industry. |
 |
| You MUST hate on organic food (and straight up lie about it) if you want to be a Skeptic. |
Here are a couple more graphics that have not aged well...
 |
Breakthrough infections: SO RARE!
|
 |
| Spoiler: KEEP YOUR MASK ON YOU FUCKING DOPE |
I guess the question we need to ask is how much are we willing to tolerate from these twatwaffles in the name of "science"?
Why is it that David Avocado Wolfe, Dr. Joe Mercola and Gwyneth Paltrow are held to a standard that doesn't apply if you and your bestie have degrees and call yourselves Unbiased Science? Well, probably because these people are filthy fucking hypocrites, that's why.
Would you like to see a new day where we hold sci-commers accountable for their actions instead of them getting to hide behind science as a virtuous shield while they shoot missiles at sick and suffering people, and suckle off the teat of toxic industries?
Ah well, we can dream.
