No, I don't know what it is that you consider to be rude, as you are not bothering to provide ANY examples of this...other than to say that you think that I am rude.I don't know - maybe you have trouble accepting what I said earlier what is considered to be rude.
Which really doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.
Here, for example, are some posts by another poster here. Tell me what you think of this language...do you think that this poster is rude?
Biased, as well, perhaps?
There is nothing wrong with not "playing nice" towards those who are responsible for ruining peoples' lives (I am not saying that intentionally, but the overall effect).
It is always striking me that people like Henry or Bagge or sometimes you, Spanky, point-out so carefully every single mistake that patients or doctors who decide to treat longterm tickborne diseases do, whereas at the same time you seem not to be bothered by the fact that the same patients were left with no diagnosis and no treatment for years, many of them actually suffering of active tickborne infection(s) (staying quiet about that or silence is usually your way of response). There is simply no honour in this behaviour. And don't confuse my statement as a defence of the ILADS or "LLMDs" as I don't like this organisation.
Discussing the evidence - what is the value of the EBM that the IDSA presents when it does not reflect the reality? (in other words when a patient with OBVIOUS tickborne infections is left with no diagnosis and/or with no effective treatment). The guidelines were made prematurely, and they cause a great harm to many people.
Even if there is some quackery related to the topic of biofilms treatment, this is still nothing compared to the horrible consequences of flawed IDSA guidelines.
You are one of those guys for whom the more important is "hard data" than peoples' lives, so don't expect respect from my side.
I guess I am sensing both a hostitlity towards the IDSA, as well as this "Spanky" person...according to this poster...this 'Spanky' person is not deserving of respect...embittered...and lacks "honour".think, RitaA, there is no sense to waste time for discussions with Spanky. If people who improve on long-term antibiotics or any other unofficial therapy means nothing for Spanky, then any further discussion is unnecessary. We just need to accept that there are people for whom the more important is current scientific data than people's recoveries that don't "fit" the current scientific data.
Moreover, I think that Spanky is embittered (and I can understand that), because his/her thyroid problems were misdiagnosed as a chronic Lyme (if I understood it correctly).
That's pretty aggressive ad hominem stuff, there, don't you think?
What would you suggest that the Admin do about this poster?