To malign articles WITH REFERENCES by talking about the ideology of the news-outlet (in which the article appeared) at best is "guilt by association." That is what Santosh's response is doing. The scientists that he quoted should take specific issues in the article and debunk it with data AND references. The linked articles is distortions and conclusions by a "biased" or "ignorant" or source.
I am not defending the author of the original article. Yet what is to say his critics are more scientific than him. I noticed neither of the critical articles had any references to debunk specific statements the original author(s) made. Please do not respond by attacking me; as I am not the topic of this thread.:=)) Neither is the author of the article nor Huffington Post the topic. Let's eliminate the usual distractions, distortions and bogus comments. The topic of the thread, for those who care to know, is the need to separate direct financial benefits from the scientist(s) and conclusions of their scientific work. And the same for peer reviewers who are all to often in an "I scratch your back and you scratch mine." "Eminent" neurologists and psychiatrists are the worst offenders (next to those promoting cancer drugs) of promoting expensive and chronic use of new and marginally beneficial drugs; causing marked-rise in cost of healthcare in the USA compared to other countries. The "eminent" specialists should critically analyze published scientific data instead of working as paid consultants to the pharmaceutical industry (in addition to their university jobs); and then pocket $2000:00 (from the pharma co.) for a one hour lecture they give on the drug. A great example of open "conflict of interest" that the scientific-medical profession condones; and from those who should be considered "role models". Regards, GL -------------- Santosh Helekar While there is some truth in what is said in the Huffington Post article linked below, ....Please read the following criticism regarding the quackery and pseudoscience promoted by Huffington Post and the author Mark Hyman: The article entitled "The Huffington Post's War on Medical Science: A Brief History" can be read at the following link: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=473 Here is a link to a Salon article by the eminent Neurologist Robert Burton detailing the problems with what Mark Hyman promotes and claims on TV, on Huffington Post and on his website: http://www.salon.com/news/environment/mind_reader/2009/03/12/mark_hyman/ ------------ Gilbert Lawrence wrote: > Medicine and Science for sale .... >http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dangerous-spin-doctors-7-_b_747325.html >
