Seriously, if you stopped for just one moment and responded to the naysayer's comments with evidence, then the conversation might be more productive...
Exchange online, identities removed and exact words modified because they aren't necessary to make the point - and besides, one was anonymous, anyway:
"I was not impressed by this movie. It is a rant against Big everything. There's no explanation of what is wrong with the guidelines. I'd like to see LLMDs explain what chronic Lyme disease is, explain which guidelines are in error and why, and then present research which contradicts research cited in the guidelines. I don't expect this will happen any time soon. I don't understand why everyone is so conspiracy theory about this and isn't looking at the problem logically.
Why would Big Pharma not want use of long term antibiotics since it's money making?
Further Comments from (assumed same) Party A:
"The guidelines have research citations. I have no issue with questioning them, it's how better ones are made. But any change must be based on research not anecdote. When someone can define what "persistent Lyme disease is" and use DB RCS with the right methodology and show longer term antibiotic therapy is good then the guidelines will change."
(Remainder of comment scrapped for repeating much of previous comment made above.)
Party B response to Party A:
"Clearly, you are clueless - even after watching the film. If you ever get Lyme disease (chances are high, considering it's an epidemic), you won't like these guidelines so much."
Party C response to Party A:
"You sound just like these two guidelines supporters and authors of guidelines. If you want to know more about it then read. Or better yet get bit by a tick and get sick and see what life is like for a Lyme disease patient."
(Remainder of comment thread removed for brevity.)
Hi, I'm sorry you are suffering. This disease sucks, and I hate it, too.
Unfortunately, this isn't making a strong case in support of the issues we're facing here and providing a well reasoned counterpoint to Party A - whoever they are - is important. (And they could be anyone who is skeptical and wants to know the answers to their questions.)
If you can convince them of the problems patients are facing, then you can convince just about anyone.
I suggest that you read the following links:
You can win in an argument - or at least present information which will get others to think, including those observing your exchange who do not comment at all.
Remember that for every comment you write and receive, there are hundreds of people who say nothing and your comment and your post has an effect on them.
This work by Camp Other is licensed under a Creative Commons
Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.