SealCove20

My adult daughter is chronically ill, and we believe it is due to Lyme disease. Although we could be wrong, in eight years no doctor has come up with an alternative diagnosis or treatment plan that has provided her with relief. She lives at home due to her illness. She has undergone a variety of treatments with varying success. The Lyme controversy has resulted in an untenable situation for patients and their caregivers, who are forced to research medical issues deeply to decide what is "right." When the majority scientific consensus approach fails to heal the patient, but there is a viable alternative group of doctors with another mindset, those who are ill are left to fend for themselves and make medical decisions they are ill-equipped to make. In such an environment, patients naturally do online research, and Wikipedia is where many turn for basic information.

The coverage of Lyme on Wikipedia reflects the deep divide in the medical community about this disease. It is extremely difficult to present balanced, fair, neutral information on a such a polarized topic, especially when the most trusted sources (such as the Infectious Diseases Society of America) are firmly in one camp. Many editors over the years have striven mightily to maintain Wikipedia's high standards for verifiability, neutral point of view, and reliable sources as they prepare and edit Wikipedia pages covering Lyme. I applaud their efforts to remain neutral and follow Wikipedia guidelines. In this instance, however, too rigorous an application of the guidelines can prevent valid information from being presented to readers on the Lyme pages

My goal is to provide the kind of information on Wikipedia that would have been so helpful to me when I started researching this disease. There has to be a way to present this controversy and disease in a way that reflects current reality without violating Wikipedia's policies on original research and reliable sources.

Many thanks to the experienced Wikipedia editors who have guided me to the policy pages. Wikipedia is a very influential resource for anyone doing research online, and it is important to keep this in mind when preparing material for public consumption.

Welcome!

Hi, SealCove20. Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page contains a lot of helpful material for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on this page, followed by your question, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Yobol (talk) 13:26, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

WP:BRD

SealCove20, it is considered good editing to follow WP:BRD, which would suggest that when a bold change of yours is reverted, you start a discussion on the talk page, rather than try to edit war your preferred version in. Yobol (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)