User talk:206.248.168.241

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please stop removing the IDSA link. Please explain changes in the future to links and link description. In reality the ILADS AND IDSA are already linked above in the article but since someone listed the ILADS and the IDSA should then be listed also, I don't know why it keeps being removed??—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.1.32 (talk) 01:38, 27 February 2007

I did. All of my edits that remove are captioned. I can't "assume good faith" when you're projecting a reversal, so I will look like the vandal. ISDA is listed everywhere in the document. You first listed the University of Chicago's servers posting of the ISDA's guidelines and not the website, so it was irrelevant to the category of "Professional societies, disease foundations and advocacy resources", my edit caption noted that. Cut the crap. And my change of the link description as a calling it an "opinion" is not vandalism (nice try,) that's what it is. The quackwatch article cites only a limited range of material (compare the citations to the own wikipedia article), and is deliberately assumes no knowledge of opposing medical and academic viewpoints. Also, the ISDA's website is not very specific to Lyme, putting it the top of links seems a little conviently skewed towards a bias. 206.248.168.241 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything the ILADS should be questioned, there "opinion" on unproven dangerous long term treatments is highly questionable. So in your theory on articles I will list that as an "opnion" since none of there treatment recommandations is science based if you want to keep things fair. I suggest you stop the games and lets have a "FAIR and blanced " link threads, the main article is already a joke and in need of serious work.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.252.1.32 (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2007

read the bulk of actual research, and specifically dr. fallons's and come back with a published cogent rebuttal of his specific findings which are consistently evaded by the anti-chronic lyme "professionals" (who are currently being investigated for antitrust and conflict of interest violations in conneticut) they say they only read from reputable sources, so do you believe this account of basically calling columbia university full of shit? ALSO speaking of u of chicago, they also have research on their server of dr. fallon's and somehow the IDSA types are consitently afraid of mentionning that it exists. hmm. they current article mentions most opinions, and currently pro-chronic-lyme research is the ONLY research that doesn't conveniently refuse knowledge of the conflicting research. thank you, you clearly have a lot of actual reading to do. 206.248.168.241 17:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Hello! Thank you for noticing and correcting incorrect information in the article Boston, Massachusetts. Wikipedia is not perfect, but people such as yourself and many other editors try their very best to insure Wikipedia is accurate. There are few that play around just to see if they can get away with it, and others that want to hurt the project by vandalizing the articles. I believe there are many more of us who edit in good faith, and are serious about keeping this project as a unique and educational encyclopedia that is free, accurate and available to all. Please stay and help out when you can. We need more like you. Thank you for your contributions. Jeeny 04:01, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] History Edits

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 interesting 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 Lyme research crowd, treats hundreds of patients with chronic Lyme--- and he 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 addition to controlling the flow of information about this illness. The history of Lyme as a bioweapon is probably threatening because it could end up cutting off their financing if the mess at Plum is fully exposed.

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. Are you Canadian? Freyfaxi 21:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borage seed oil

I see that you keep removing the table of fatty acid composition for borage seed oil. It's taken from the cited source. The composition was analyzed using gas chromatography by Index Pharmaceuticals. The footnote after the table makes it clear that the results are taken from the source. I don't understand why you think the table is wrong, nor why you don't understand that it's taken directly from a reputable source, cited in the article. In any case, please either replace it with results from a better source, if you have one, or stop removing it. Thanks. Waitak 02:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

i "keep" removing? this is the second time. that website is as you point out, commercial and those values are based on a specific product using a special extraction process, and not typical whole borage seed oil, despite that it is based on it. that website says itself that typical whole borage seed oil has ~24% GLA, while their special product has the 50%+ values. anyone reading this would get the impression that any typical borage seed oil they buy would have values comparable to whats up here, which is unfair and pointless. if you want to add some footnote about what some company can purify it's GLA content too, fine, whatever, you go to that effort, but as things are now, no information beats wrong information, so no, i won't stop removing nonsense. bye. 206.248.168.241 18:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation. Can I suggest that you tone down your responses a bit? "Nonsense" is pretty strong... WP:AGF talks about one important aspect of how Wikipedia functions - one that I try hard to observe. It's pretty hard for a community of widely distributed people who are passionate about one thing or another, and who often disagree with each other, to work together without everything falling off the rails. I find that making an effort to be respectful in interactions helps a lot. My apologies if my communication with you came across as anything less.
So, any suggestions for a better source? And while I'm here, how about signing up with a Wikipedia login? It's pretty easy, and it does make it easier to participate as a member of the WP community. Waitak 13:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)