I hear you, WBF. It's a disturbing and sadly common phenomenon. I think some sites like SH might start out with a few issue areas about
which they're really onto something or have real expertise, or about
which at least they have an interesting perspective. And then they expand, thinking (like basically every medical entity...) that they are authorities on everything health-related, instead of sticking to what they know. I know that we have to be adept critical thinkers as we read about
health online, and I know that a site can be wrong about
one thing but right about
another. But it is so exhausting having to second-guess everything, decide which perspectives to accept and which ones to reject, and especially to see your own beliefs and experiences flatly invalidated.
This explains a lot of what we see here, though, right? On this site, we disagree about
the fundamental nature of Lyme. Some people say all you have to do is treat infections with antibiotics and everything will fall into place, and others say all pharma is poison. Some say all Lyme is an autoimmune disease, and others say autoimmune disease isn't a real thing, and still others think it's maybe related to Lyme but not necessarily.... My point is that people really dig in and believe the thing that validates their own experience, dogmatically sometimes, maybe because with bizarrely controversial illnesses like Lyme we are desperate to feel like we're not nuts, and desperate to figure out The Thing that will make us better!
That's why I SO value the supportive vibe we have here on this forum. I might think someone's treatment choice doesn't make sense, or that it's something I never would try, but I'm sure as heck going to support them trying it, and cheer them on, and wish them success! We're pioneers in a lot of ways.
Sometimes I want to ask which resources people first used when learning about
Lyme, as a way to learn how our perspectives are shaped. I grew up in a very pro-drug, pro-mainstream medicine family in which everyone always felt bad and never talked about
it. I worked for years in a natural foods store, seeing firsthand the power of herbs and supplements to heal people the medical system was failing. I studied midwifery, so I think the body is an amazing thing. I worked in crisis counseling for years, so I know how intensely the body and mind are connected (or really how they are not separate at all). I have been failed by the medical system over and over in my life, and I've always responded poorly to drugs, despite not having any issues with environmental or food allergies. When I figured out that I had Lyme years ago, I found the Rawls website and Traveler's posts here, and assorted crunchier resources, and I think that made a big impact. I am very grateful that I kept digging so that my early encounters with ignorance and IDSA "Lyme specialists" did not send me down an even rockier path.
I'm just rambling here, saying thank goodness for accessible information. I wonder what motivates SH and other Lyme denier websites. Do they think we are being swindled or duped or gaslit by opportunistic doctors? Are they defending their corporate advertisers? Do they think Stephen Buhner is just an elaborate trickster, chortling to himself all day? I really don't understand the point of stridently denying the experience of millions of people worldwide, unless someone has a plausible alternative explanation to offer, or unless advertisers call the shots.
Honestly, I'm ready to hear it if someone has a convincing explanation for what's going on with me and how to fix it. Otherwise, I hope people can have a respectful approach. It's okay with me if someone wants to question the wellness industry, question the haphazard way Lyme is treated, or even not believe that Lyme can be a troublesome microbe. But they need to contribute constructively to the conversation, not just tear things down and leave this often-despairing group of people feeling even more lost.