From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <[email protected]>
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.
**I do agree with you, Dr.Gilbert. What Dr.Mark Hyman is writing is true.
This is known to any "layman in medicine" or "quack".
Santosh admits, at least, that "there is some truth in what is said in the Huffington Post article". But the link that Santosh brings does not refute the article, nor is it directly linked to it. If there is "quackery and pseudoscience" in the claims on TV by Dr.Mark Hyman, let them tackle the problem directly without referring, in general, to Huffington Post.
Let us avoid this "scientific illiteracy" on this Forum.
Regards.
Fr.Ivo

<<< 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





Reply via email to