R-E-S-P-E-C-T My Unbiased Science Authority!

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! 

Comments on this echo chamber have been limited to Substack subscribers only.
(Side note - pictured is the bound dissertation by Dr. Love, not a book.)

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.

The USP also claims that biofilms and cyst forms of Borellia are "not real problems with Lyme disease"...except again, there is actual research on this and it even has pictures!

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.

Also, it's totally normal for your nonprofit to have paid ad partnerships with 3M right? Right?? 

(Full disclosure: 3M has ravaged my community and poisoned the bodies of my friends. I'm not unbiased towards them.)

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.

Empathy Deficiency Syndrome

Abbey Stanford describes herself as "a writer who has been living with a chronic neurological disorder since my early teens, but which was only diagnosed 3 years ago. I often write about disability and the effects of illness, as well as wider issues such as women and those from lower-income backgrounds. I often write with humour to address serious issues, especially those around my own health."

On Dec 28th she made a tweet which I rather tend to agree with.

People who take advantage of sick and suffering people, have a special place on my shit list. Another special place on that list belongs to people who pretend they are the champions of sick and suffering people, waving their science flags,

bravely fighting the quacks on behalf of the innocent. When in reality...

...they view the victims as punching bags not worthy of an ounce of common decency. 

Somehow, and I don't care how many science degrees you have, or how "evidence based" you claim to be,  it's kinda difficult to accept that loads of people are really going around pretending to have life-changing chronic illnesses for attention or because they are bored. Even a person with a mental illness that would cause delusions or pathological attention seeking still has a real illness. They are sick, and they deserve compassion, not derision from up on your high science horse.

Someone like SciBabe who has a couple of chronic conditions herself, shows her true colors in this now deleted post. Her Skeptic fans, even when confronted with evidence, which they are so fond of, still do a song and dance routine to try to cover for their favorite dirty joking porn critic as I quickly found out the other day.

Apologies for the epic screenshots, but I got such a laugh out of this exchange that I just had to share. Skeptics are not immune to the things they accuse so many others of. When confronted with evidence, they say that they change their minds. But in my experience they try to infer that you are a kook, and whip out all manner of logical fallacies. In this case, all to protect one of their club celebrities. And for what?

Skeptics claim to be fighting for the little guy - protecting the public from 'woo' and 'quackery'. But is their activity having a net positive effect and helping people that are suffering and sick? Or, is this behavior really just a cover for their hatred of certain groups of people?

Vaccinate your damn kids or we will stab them with a rusty nail! Why won't you listen to us?!?

They definitely have their favorite punching bags, and Lyme disease I've noticed is a big one. 

In this uniformed, painfully ignorant post from Rebecca over at Skepchick, she displays the same attitude as our previous examples.

"It’s because David doesn’t have Lyme Disease. His family claims he has “chronic neurological Lyme disease,” which, I am happy to inform you, does not exist. Congratulations, David, you’re cured!"

These Skeptics call 'chronic Lyme' a fake disease, but if they actually cared about helping people who are suffering, they'd be advocating for funding research into Post Treatment Lyme Disease Syndrome (PTLDS) in order to answer the question of why some people remain ill after treatment with antibiotics instead of arguing over semantics.

The CDC says the cause of PTLDS is not known. Well, what are you waiting for, Skeptics? Aren't you guys the gatekeepers of all things science?

One surefire way to keep people from wasting time and money on miracle cures and scam artists like this is to develop accurate tests to look for the presence of the disease, thus answering the question of whether or not persistent infection is a cause of some people not getting well after treatment.

People with misunderstood and stigmatized ailments could really use help - but Skeptics are busy selling t-shirts, doing podcasts, and making You Tube videos and snotty memes. That debunking and self promotion takes precedence for these people really says it all, even if they are verbally stating that they care or even retweet Ms. Stanford's thread at the beginning. This is all an act.

Science was not created to use as a power play against people you don't like, to use sick people as a punchline or to pretend you are a champion of the people, fighting quacks on their behalf.

Real ethical skeptics and scientists put the knowledge they gain from the scientific method to good use to help people and solve problems. Even fake diseases can save lives.

History gives us plenty of examples where a syndrome or illness or cause thereof was denied by many in medicine or by Skeptics. Such closed minded individuals will not be the ones who solve our most pressing mystery ailments. Do not rely on them for an unbiased take when it comes to these issues. Look for those who show compassion and bravery to speak on behalf of those who are ill, advocate for patients, and support using science to find answers.