by Kim Kooyers, SpiroChicks co-founder
I don't even know where to begin with yesterday's Chicago Tribune EDITORIAL. My head is spinning. But while I gain my composure, and work on my own story as Ashley has called us to do (in a nutshell: I would not be able to function or care for my two young children if it weren't for long-term antibiotics). I thought I'd share Pamela Weintraub's response to the article:
Whenever a diagnosis enters the wild west of contested disease, charlatans may prey on the sick--many of whom do not have the disease at all. But to profile this disordered fringe as representative of those on one side of a medical debate while presenting university scientists as representative of the other is biased reporting. In its failure to research the essence of the debate over Lyme disease symptoms that persist after short-term antibiotic treatment, and especially in its failure to interview scientists from mainstream academia to present an alternate viewpoint, this article represents a low in science reporting. This agenda-driven piece rides roughshod over complexities and nuances–and the core ethics of journalism--by implying it has relied on predators for information because legitimate scientists with alternate viewpoints do not exist. I assure you, they do, and would have to be quoted to make this real journalism instead of a sensationalistic hatchet job.
--Pamela Weintraub, Features Editor, Discover Magazine and Author, Cure Unknown: Inside the Lyme Epidemic (Winner of the American Medical Writers Association Book Award, 2009.)
BTW, be sure to check out Lorraine Johnson's response to the article on the CALDA site.