You think about that, what you believe in. It matters now to you and me, what you believe in.
A New York City-based news team is calling on the CDC to clarify allegedly false remarks made during a recent interview about Lyme disease.
People keep asking me, “What were your symptoms? How did you know you have Lyme disease?” To say “it’s complicated” is an understatement.
A local news outlet bests the likes of 60 Minutes, producing the most comprehensive, accurate and responsible special dedicated to Lyme disease to date. We can all learn from this.
Government compliance expert Jenna Luche-Thayer and New York-based news station tell the stories behind the stories of Lyme disease.
This Thursday, FOX NY 5 will broadcast “Lyme and Reason: The Cause and Consequence of Lyme Disease” at 10:30 p.m. Eastern.
An infectious disease specialist and computer scientist leads innovative approaches to deciphering the mysteries of Lyme disease.
Journalists have a unique and vitally important role in informing the public, particularly when trusted authorities neglect to do so adequately. The nation’s public health demands greater investigative reporting related to Lyme disease for reasons discussed below.
Lyme disease is unique among infectious diseases. Here are some basics journalists must keep in mind when reporting on Lyme and associated diseases.
Last week, Jenna Luché-Thayer presented findings of an investigation into the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to Congressional staff at a Lyme disease briefing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C.
Lyme disease patients are confronted with a complicated version of reality in a number of ways.
“I would not have been able to write this book if I had not been a reporter at the San Francisco Chronicle, the only daily newspaper in the United States that did not need a movie star to come down with AIDS before it considered the epidemic a legitimate news story deserving thorough coverage.” It’s a striking statement, isn’t it, with the benefit of hindsight?
Unethical journalism may be committed intentionally or by accident, but the resulting disinformation or misinformation can be potentially damaging either way. In the case of public health, the results can be disastrous.
It is obvious to anyone familiar with either journalistic ethics in general or Lyme disease specifically that Salzberg’s story contains factual errors, gross misrepresentation of findings, and a lack of context that is vital to understanding the results of the study.
The crux of the Globe’s concern seems to be financial — the cost to medical insurers and to employers to treat late-stage or persistent cases of Lyme disease with antibiotics, when prescribed by knowledgeable and competent physicians based on sound medical research.
The past couple of weeks have seen remarkable progress for Lyme disease from both research and regulatory perspectives.