5 ms·

Well now I don't know who to believe.

• packetized 10y ago
  I'd say believe the people and views supported by factual evidence, instead of appeals to emotion - I found the original article to be one long exercise in how to write things that would annoy a debate coach.
  • tumblen 10y ago
    Or just remain skeptical, open-minded and curious for additional evidence towards either side. If you don't have sufficient evidence, you don't have to believe either side.
• dkarl 10y ago
  It's not an issue to take sides on. Some people get infected with Lyme disease and need treatment. Some unhappy people go looking for a disease to believe they have and choose Lyme disease. My father had mysterious and very scary symptoms for several years running in the 1990s, and in like 2005 his doctor said, "You know, that could have been Lyme disease. Heck, it probably was," and that very quickly became a certainty in my Dad's mind. So when you hear someone say "Lyme disease" there's no way to know exactly what's up without hearing more.
• scottious 10y ago
  I think it's okay to say "there are people with non-specific symptoms, and they really have these symptoms, but it's not proven exactly what's causing them". Because honestly that's where we're at now. I think it's likely that we'll figure get higher resolution into conditions like this and it'll become clear what the pathologies are. What's dangerous is thinking you KNOW the answer (either in the affirmative or negative). This whole article is an exercise in motivated reasoning. There's absolutely no way that the author would ever change their mind. They're far too entrenched in one camp. Even if we truly figure out the root cause, I doubt they'll ever give up their position.