Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Dr. Gilbert Lawrence wrote : ……. The question to you, with your psychiatric background: What do we do with difficult cases or what in medicine is termed resistant subset? Is applying Dilbert's dictum the only solution? RESPONSE : Patients with psychoses do not pose a problem, they go into remissions and relapses. But neurosis patients, specially with personality pattern disorders, having distorted self-image can be difficult and resistant. But applying Dilbert's dictum is not the only solution. One can always refer such patients to another crack scientist; like in the scene below: A timid person enters the consulting room of a psychiatrist and says: “Doctor, I have dual personality.” Psychiatrist: “Buck up my child, have your seat; let’s all four sit down and chat.” Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
George Pinto said : Just this morning at Anjuna beach, Aunty D'souza clearly stated that IF the Goan inquisition happened, it did not happen in Goa but Bihar. If you run into her this week, she has a special sale on homeopathic medicinal cures for delusions, Rs. 10 for one bottle, Rs. 5 for two bottles. Hope this information helps (I found it on Google). RESPONSE : Am I getting delusions reading this? What was the price again? You mean one bottle and two quarts? ;-) Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale
As promised in my last post in this thread, I provide below a brief review of the Boutron et al JAMA paper for the lay public. In doing so, I will answer the questions that needed to be answered in the first place. These answers should make it clear to those who have followed this thread why the article by Mark Hyman on Huffington Post was a misrepresentation of many aspects of that paper. I have already given you examples of the misrepresentations in the following prior post in this thread: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-October/200051.html The title of the paper that I am referring to below is: Reporting and Interpretation of Randomized Controlled Trials With Statistically Nonsignificant Results for Primary Outcomes. It was published in the Journal of American Medical Association by Isabelle Boutron, Susan Dutton, Philippe Ravaud and Douglas G. Altman on May 26, 2010. 1. What was the paper about? The paper was an attempt to examine the validity of the prior tacit understanding that subjective bias enters into the reporting of negative results of drug treatment trials. This understanding was supported to some extent by earlier studies of others. 2. What did the authors do? They selected 72 out of 616 papers dealing with what are known as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in December 2006. Only 72 papers were selected because these contained non-significant or negative primary results, which was what the authors were focusing on. Two researchers independently read these 72 papers, and subjectively assessed whether the authors had spun the interpretation of the negative results. Reading the description of the methods it is clear that the following excerpts from Mark Hyman's article were misrepresentations: analyzed in detail 72 of those they considered to be of the highest quality. ..Mark Hyman The authors of this report did not just read the abstracts and conclusions of the studies they reviewed, but independently analyzed the raw data. ..Mark Hyman 3. What did the authors find? They found that what they defined as spin in the interpretation of negative results was present in as many as 42 of these papers in one of their sections, and more than 40% of them in at least 2 sections in the main text. One caveat/limitation of their findings, which they mention is that the two researchers did not always agree on the presence of spin in the different sections. Accordingly, they state that their reproducibility was moderate. Reading these findings it is clear that the following statement of Mark Hyman is highly misleading: They found that 40 percent of the articles misrepresented the data in the abstract or in the main text of the study. Furthermore they uncovered that in cases where studies had negative outcomes--in other words, the treatment studied DID NOT work--the scientists authoring the studies created a spin on the data that showed the treatments DID work. .Mark Hyman 4. What did the authors infer from their findings? They inferred that in reporting of negative or non-significant treatment outcomes the authors of many studies with such negative results consciously or subconsciously introduce distortion or spin to make the most of those outcomes. They also made the following observation: Our results are consistent with those of other related studies showing a positive relation between financial ties and favorable conclusions stated in trial reports. Boutron et al. However, when they were challenged to substantiate the above statement with actual data by two other authors of a subsequent comment on their paper, they had to retract the statement. Here is what they wrote in their retraction: The statement in our Comment section that was noted by Allison and Cope was too strong. Because of small numbers and missing data, we cannot draw any clear conclusion on the relation between funding source and the presence of spin. .Boutron et al. 5. What are the limitations of their approach, findings and conclusions? In addition to the above retraction, and the already mentioned caveat, the authors themselves stated the following limitations of their paper: i) That their assessment is subjective, and there may be disagreements between different researchers/authors on their conclusions. ii) That they cannot say whether the spin was deliberate or because of lack of knowledge or both. iii) That they cannot tell whether the spin had any effect on readers and peer reviewers. Reading this and the above there should be no doubt that the following statement of Mark Hyman is a gross misrepresentation: QUOTE In plain language, 40 percent of the studies we count on to make medical decisions are authored by scientists who act as spin doctors distorting medical research to suit personal needs or corporate economic interests. Spin can be defined as specific reporting that could distort the
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
-- Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcao wrote: If the cap didn't fit him, a learned person as Santosh claims himself, should have just ignored the comment. ... Education is attaining knowledge; in contrast to Degrees which is just a piece of paper. Education cannot be obtained through manipulations whereas Degrees can. And often than not, it gets exposed when these specimens open their mouth. - GL responds: You are right in all the points you make ... as usual! Credit goes to Santosh for trying the cap for size; specially since that is the bye-line following all his posts. Where Santosh is wrong, (with all his degrees), is in calling my post Abusive. Those with education would call my post spoon feeding. The good news: those with education have stopped the last wordism and spam mail. Their improvement is gladly noted and much appreciated. Please note my politeness). Let us hope they do not relapse. One would have thought, that Santosh would learn from his own friends (the less than five) that are in remission; and from the vast majority of goanetters; with whom dialog can be such a pleasure. The question to you, with your psychiatric background: What do we do with difficult cases or what is medicine is termed resistant subset? Is applying Dilbert's dictum the only solution? Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Santosh Helekar said: Gilbert is now taking out his frustrations about Goanetters who have exposed his follies by smearing and insinuating their innocent families who have nothing to do with Gilbert or Goanet. What a shameful thing to do! BTW, all responses to such abusive posts are already being posted on international Goan websites for the last 15 years. RESPONSE: Dr. Gilbert has not accused anyone in particular or mentioned any names, nor given any definite hint as to the identity of the uncouth persons who act as self appointed ‘Mafia Bosses’ on Goanet. It is for the Goanetters to identify them from their posts. I ask the reason for this outburst from Santosh. If the cap didn’t fit him, a learned person as Santosh claims himself, should have just ignored the comment. I beg to differ on one point with Dr. Gilbert. He said: “very educated but totally uncouth”. I may be wrong as this involves English. Education is attaining knowledge; in contrast to Degrees which is just a piece of paper. Education cannot be obtained through manipulations whereas Degrees can. And often than not, it gets exposed when these specimens open their mouth. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale
Santosh Helekar I must say that I am shocked and thoroughly disappointed. I am sorry to say this but it is so sub-standard that even a flunking high school student would have done a better job. And even more blah blah ... blah. --- GL responds: Any person with or without scientific background can read for themselves my post analyzing the JAMA paper. My post was quoting the relevant parts of the data from the JAMA paper; that the PAPER ITSELF had analyzed and presented. Santosh's blah .. blah of the JAMA paper and his comments of my review (of the same paper) does not quote a single factoid of the analyzed data. So in claiming that I am unable to do scientific blah ... blah ... blah, Santosh is really smearing the authors of the JAMA paper (for those who need spoon- feeding). The JAMA paper corroborates what Dr. Hyman wrote. Or, Dr. Hyman's article corroborated what the JAMA paper reported. That is again spoon-feeding to those who needed it. Please read Santosh's past bogus comments that Dr. Hyman was misrepresenting the JAMA paper. From my reading and presentation, there was nothing in the JAMA paper which contradicted the conclusions of Hyman's article. Thus Santosh's claim (when HE recommended we read the JAMA paper), is totally baseless that any reader, should be able to recognize quite well that Hyman has misrepresented many methodological and technical aspects of the JAMA paper in his article. In fact, he has resorted to more spin than the targets of the paper. With sadness in my heart, I have to reiterate that Santosh once again reaffirms that he does not read, understand and digest what is written. With technical words, Santosh is faking his expertise in analyzing clinical papers. No longer is Dr. Hyman's paper the topic of discussion. Santosh has changed the focus of arguments and discussion (if one can dignify his writings) to EVERYTHING BUT the original paper on medical 'Science for Sale' - once again spoon-feeding is necessary on the topic of the thread. He continues to do what he does best - smear, distortions and bogus comments. Santosh, keep up your reputation as Goa's 'premier' Master at smear, distortion and bogus comments. You know how Dilbert says we should deal with such writings. Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
--- On Sat, 10/16/10, Santosh Helekar chimbel...@yahoo.com wrote: Gilbert is now taking out his frustrations about Goanetters who have exposed his follies by smearing I would kindly request Gilbert to stick to facts and the truth will follow. This is the hallmark of good arguments. On an unrelated topic, Gilbert is right. The Goan inquisition happened in Goa, Philippines, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goa,_Camarines_Sur I have no idea why Catholics have been blamed for anything, let alone a silly inquisition. Just this morning at Anjuna beach, Aunty D'souza clearly stated that IF the Goan inquisition happened, it did not happen in Goa but Bihar. If you run into her this week, she has a special sale on homeopathic medicinal cures for delusions, Rs. 10 for one bottle, Rs. 5 for two bottles. Hope this information helps (I found it on Google). George
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
- Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcao wrote: From Mr. Santosh Helekar's posts on Goanet on the subject Science for sale..', it is obvious that he does not know how to discuss issues. I don't expect discussions to proceed in such manner, specially when one claims to be teaching post graduates and post doctorates. Basic knowledge of how discussions are to proceed is imparted as students in any field. I pity the students and regret the standard of education in any Institute where a teacher himself does not know to conduct a discussion. --- GL responds: The way I look at it, 'less than five' Goans, very educated but totally uncouth, have repeatedly held Goanetters hostage both on and off goanet. Like self-appointed Mafia Bosses, they have prevented others having an intellectual and reasoned dialog. Yet some straight-talk from a few like Dr. Ferdandino, Gabe Menezes and others may have finally worked the magic. Straight talk for those who need spoon feeding is calling a spade a spade. Dr. Ferdandino's training in psychiatry has helped him spot and expose some prominent Goanetters with behavioral problems. I strongly support the notification to place Goan spam-posts on the international web and for archive. Now that Goan spammers have been put on notice, I would think anyone with the savvy and skill to do so, can do it. Goanet has become a past time and outlet of personal frustrations for those isolated. This may be in their rooms, on some remote island, no hobbies, no occupation; and for all that I know may even be ostracized by their own family. But others cannot be the victims of their plight. Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Gilbert is now taking out his frustrations about Goanetters who have exposed his follies by smearing and insinuating their innocent families who have nothing to do with Gilbert or Goanet. What a shameful thing to do! BTW, all responses to such abusive posts are already being posted on international Goan websites for the last 15 years. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sat, 10/16/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: The way I look at it, 'less than five' Goans, very educated but totally uncouth, have repeatedly held Goanetters hostage both on and off goanet. Like self-appointed Mafia Bosses, they have prevented others having an intellectual and reasoned dialog. Yet some straight-talk from a few like Dr. Ferdandino, Gabe Menezes and others may have finally worked the magic. Straight talk for those who need spoon feeding is calling a spade a spade. Dr. Ferdandino's training in psychiatry has helped him spot and expose some prominent Goanetters with behavioral problems. I strongly support the notification to place Goan spam-posts on the international web and for archive. Now that Goan spammers have been put on notice, I would think anyone with the savvy and skill to do so, can do it. Goanet has become a past time and outlet of personal frustrations for those isolated. This may be in their rooms, on some remote island, no hobbies, no occupation; and for all that I know may even be ostracized by their own family. But others cannot be the victims of their plight. Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Mr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão here appears not to be able to see himself well in his mirror. In a thread that is supposed to be about science for sale he is expressing his casteist prejudice against fisherwomen, stereotyping and abusing them in a cheap manner. The main topic in this thread was ignored in the first place by Mr. Ferdinando, along with two other Goanetters with the purpose of demeaning me. Please see his post below: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-October/199872.html If his mirror and judgment were not so clouded he would have realized that it is he who has now introduced the topic of whose husband sleeps with whom, to elevate to his own level, this discussion about lack of trust in medical science and peer review, that was started by an author of a multi-part copied and paraphrased series on the European inquisition. Cheers, Santosh --- On Mon, 10/11/10, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão drferdina...@hotmail.com wrote: From Mr. Santosh Helekar’s posts on Goanet on the subject ‘Science for sale..’, it is obvious that he does not know how to discuss issues. I don’t expect discussions to proceed in such manner, specially when one claims to be teaching post graduates and post doctorates. Basic knowledge of how discussions are to proceed is imparted as students in any field. I pity the students and regret the standard of education in any Institute where a teacher himself does not know to conduct a discussion. In this discussion on Goanet on the subject ‘Science for sale’; the main topic or issue was of the pharmaceuticals and research scientists nexus, in which ultimately the patient bears the brunt. But Mr. Santosh started itself by ignoring the main topic and began arguments on ‘peer review’ and reached ‘European Inquisition’. This type of arguments and discussion typically resemble how the fisherwomen fight in the fish market. They bring in the father, mother, brothers, in-laws, neighbours, everybody into their argument and finally reach the topic of whose husband sleeps with whom. In the bargain the main issue is entirely forgotten and lost. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale
In his previous post Gilbert thanked me for providing him with the original paper by Boutron et al, and promised Goanetters that he would read that paper, and offer them his analysis of it. He starts his latest post appended below by claiming that it is his review of that paper. But if he really believes that what is appended below is an analysis or review of a research paper, then I must say that I am shocked and thoroughly disappointed. I am sorry to say this but it is so sub-standard that even a flunking high school student would have done a better job. I know it is a waste of your time to read it. But in case you do so, you will find that, instead of telling us accurately, and in simple words, what the paper was about, what the authors did, what they found, what they inferred from their findings, and what the limitations of their approach, findings and conclusions were, he has devoted almost an entire post yet again to abuse me. All you read is Santosh this and Santosh that. In fact, he does not mention the names of any of the authors even once. My name is mentioned 5 times, and I had nothing to do with the paper. Out of the 615 words in his so-called review of the paper, he devotes only 210 words on it. The remaining 405 words are wasted on sophomoric derogatory babble directed at me. And talk about copy and paste, of the 210 words referring to the paper, 109 are copied and pasted from it, without explaining what they mean, and leaving out all the caveats and qualifications that the authors so nicely present in their paper. What was truly sad and disturbing to me, however, was the following statement, and its implication, if this is how this man and his colleague feel despite being medical professionals: QUOTE I shared the JAMA paper with my colleague. He remarked, Why are we wasting our time reading these medical journals? UNQUOTE Gilbert Lawrence I wonder why they even bothered to go to medical school. They could have started treating patients using their and their grandmothers' intuition right out of elementary school. But I must say that my sadness and disappointment was tempered by the following amusing piece of advice: QUOTE Santosh should try writing his own scientific papers or at-least original goanet posts, without the trademark 'Copy and Paste'; instead of being an expert at demonizing other peoples' writings. UNQUOTE Gilbert Lawrence Here is a guy who, from all indications documented in the medical literature has never written a single original full-length peer-reviewed investigative research paper in his life, advising another guy who has been doing so for a living (in fact, submitting the latest one as we speak), to try it. If that is not rich, I don't know what is. Cheers, Santosh P.S. Since Gilbert's attempt was a horrible disappointment, I will write a short dispassionate review of the Boutron et al JAMA paper targeted towards lay people, when I get a chance. It will also be an opportunity to show the lay public how important self-criticism, dispassionate critical analysis and peer review are to scientific progress, and how greatly these mechanisms are valued in science as it is practiced today. --- On Sat, 10/9/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: This is a continuation of my prior post reviewing this paper from JAMA on RCT (Randomized Clinical Trials) This paper is a greater critique of the medical-scientific establishment than what Dr. Hyman reported. The JAMA paper questions the ability of medical scientists to interpret the data, report results and honest conclusions of RCT (Randomized Clinical Trials) in what the article calls spin. Yes SPIN! (aka distortions in case one needs spoon-feeding). And further if more spoon-feeding is needed, the same critiques apply to the papers' peer reviewers that approved the paper for publication; instead of picking up the weaknesses the JAMA article raises. I shared the JAMA paper with my colleague. He remarked, Why are we wasting our time reading these medical journals? Santosh's characterizations is his usual distortions and smear of Dr. Hyman and his paper. OR more likely his comments may be INABILITY on his part to read and understand what is written. His comments on this paper suggest a need of spoon-feeding by the authors. As per the JAMA article SPIN is defined as use of specific reporting strategies from whatever motive to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a non-statistical non-significant difference or the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statically non-significant results Here are the summarized results from the Conclusions of the paper: Of the 616 published reports of RCT in 2006, 72 were eligible and appraised 18 percent of published reports had spin in the Title. 37.5 percent had reported spin in the Results. 58 percent had reported spin
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
From Mr. Santosh Helekar’s posts on Goanet on the subject ‘Science for sale..’, it is obvious that he does not know how to discuss issues. I don’t expect discussions to proceed in such manner, specially when one claims to be teaching post graduates and post doctorates. Basic knowledge of how discussions are to proceed is imparted as students in any field. I pity the students and regret the standard of education in any Institute where a teacher himself does not know to conduct a discussion. In this discussion on Goanet on the subject ‘Science for sale’; the main topic or issue was of the pharmaceuticals and research scientists nexus, in which ultimately the patient bears the brunt. But Mr. Santosh started itself by ignoring the main topic and began arguments on ‘peer review’ and reached ‘European Inquisition’. This type of arguments and discussion typically resemble how the fisherwomen fight in the fish market. They bring in the father, mother, brothers, in-laws, neighbours, everybody into their argument and finally reach the topic of whose husband sleeps with whom. In the bargain the main issue is entirely forgotten and lost. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale
I would like to point out the mistakes made by Gilbert in his post below. --- On Tue, 10/5/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Thank you for sending us this article from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). I perused it. As many know, America is big into RCTs (Randomized Clinical Trials). So it is interesting that the authors of this study which critically analysis RCTs are from UK (Oxford) and France (Paris). This is misleading. First, RCT is supposed to stand for Randomized Controlled Trial, not Randomized Clinical Trial. Second, these trials are the gold standard of clinical research to determine efficacy of treatments. Every advanced country is big into them, including U.K. and France, not just the U.S. The paper essentially is a rebuke of the medical-scientific establishment (including medical statisticians) in the USA and elsewhere. The paper is not a rebuke of medical statisticians at all. It merely criticizes how statistically non-significant results are interpreted, reported or downplayed in the abstract and/or main text by the principal author(s) or in media reports by journalists. It does not fault the statistics or the validity of the raw data. Now you claim Dr. Hyman, has misrepresented many methodological and technical aspects of the JAMA paper in his article. In fact, he has resorted to more spin than the targets of the paper. So here is another victim of your smear. The charge of smear is bogus, as usual. As a matter of fact, I have provided a point by point justification for my above-quoted assertions. Here is the link to that Goanet post: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-October/200051.html Now if you want to see a rather foolish and transparent example of a cheap smear, please read the drivel below. Please note that the royal we is invoked to throw mud at me, and to fool readers who have no clue what he is talking about, hoping that they are stupid enough to take him by his word, without noticing that he is absolutely unable to provide any justifications for any of his idle assertions. In any case, it would be interesting to read what is written in the analysis of the paper that is promised to be delivered. Cheers, Santosh --- On Tue, 10/5/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Of late, I have noticed that quite a few of us have been checking your web-link references in your responses. Some have replied that the links are unconnected to the topic being discussed or that your quotes or interpretation of the links are incorrect. You have corrected yourself, in some posts. Frankly we have no time to chase your bogus Copy and Paste references. You got to do your own home-work more diligently before wasting our time. And as far as the cancer experts you quote as personal communication, I can give them my opinion if they post their views directly on Goanet instead of having you misrepresent their views as well. Analysis of JAMA paper to follow. Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale
This is a continuation of my prior post reviewing this paper from JAMA on RCT (Randomized Clinical Trials) This paper is a greater critique of the medical-scientific establishment than what Dr. Hyman reported. The JAMA paper questions the ability of medical scientists to interpret the data, report results and honest conclusions of RCT (Randomized Clinical Trials) in what the article calls spin. Yes SPIN! (aka distortions in case one needs spoon-feeding). And further if more spoon-feeding is needed, the same critiques apply to the papers' peer reviewers that approved the paper for publication; instead of picking up the weaknesses the JAMA article raises. I shared the JAMA paper with my colleague. He remarked, Why are we wasting our time reading these medical journals? Santosh's characterizations is his usual distortions and smear of Dr. Hyman and his paper. OR more likely his comments may be INABILITY on his part to read and understand what is written. His comments on this paper suggest a need of spoon-feeding by the authors. As per the JAMA article SPIN is defined as use of specific reporting strategies from whatever motive to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a non-statistical non-significant difference or the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statically non-significant results Here are the summarized results from the Conclusions of the paper: Of the 616 published reports of RCT in 2006, 72 were eligible and appraised 18 percent of published reports had spin in the Title. 37.5 percent had reported spin in the Results. 58 percent had reported spin in the Conclusions. A third of all articles had spin in Results, Discussion and Conclusions. And 40 percent had spin in two of the three areas. In Conclusion, THE PAPER REPORTS (not Dr. Hyman or me) the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results. Now Santosh should not abuse and smear the authors of this paper and claim he does not understand their methodologies, bio-statistical analysis, interpretations, etc. To spoon feed, stop dropping technical words, to impress us that you are an expert about what you are talking. As a friend who I respect, the reality is you do not know what you are talking when it comes to clinical medicine. Stop pretending you are an expert physician or scientist. You can fool the blind on Goanet and your devoted followers - read side-kicks. There is a lot to improve in science of Medicine. Dr. Mark Hyman in his article medical Science for sale should be complemented for writing and surfacing some serious issues. As far as Santosh's unrelated side-reference on my interest in history, I do not claim to be an expert in that field. Yet I certainly have far more interest and knowledge in the field than him. So I am happy and thank him and others for reading my weekly write-up entitled Europe and Inquisition. Hopefully, now that we have some background on the subject, future references to this topic of Inquisition on Goanet will shed more light than heat. I repeat once again. We have no time to chase Santosh's bogus Copy and Paste references. He has got to do his own home-work more diligently before wasting our time. Regarding his suggestion that I should not write about history, perhaps he should take his own advice and stick to his field of animal experiments. On my part I will keep Dilbert's dictum in mind regarding dealing with idiots; and further not be bothered by smears, distortions and bogus comments. Santosh should try writing his own scientific papers or at-least original goanet posts, without the trademark 'Copy and Paste'; instead of being an expert at demonizing other peoples' writings. Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Mr. Ferdinando here appears to be ignorant about a lot of things, but especially about the self-proclaimed expertise and activities of Gilbert on Goanet. Gilbert has veritably copied and paraphrased a multi-part series here on the European Inquisition. Please see the following links: http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-September/198459.html http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-September/199426.html http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-September/198524.html http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-September/199075.html http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-September/198764.html http://lists.goanet.org/pipermail/goanet-goanet.org/2010-October/199765.html Mr. Ferdinando is also misleading Goanetters about me on two fronts: 1. He is not telling them that it was Gilbert who introduced the topic of peer review in this thread while abusing neurologists, psychiatrists and scientists. 2. Under the guise of accusing me of doing something that I have not done he is stealthily insinuating the topic of communalism in this thread on science, which has nothing to do with it. I was merely pointing out Gilbert's hypocrisy of doing something himself that is much worse than he accuses me of doing, posing as a historian on Goanet. It appears now that this shameless trait is shared by Mr. Ferdinando, as well. He is also falsely accusing me of doing the very thing that he is much more guilty of, hilariously in the very same post. Cheers, Santosh --- On Tue, 10/5/10, Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão drferdina...@hotmail.com wrote: RESPONSE : First and foremost, nowhere in Gilbert’s post has he written anything about ‘European Inquisition’. If Santosh does not know the meaning of the English word ‘Inquisition’, I would suggest he surf the dictionaries on the network, cut and paste it next time. Or is he trying to instigate communal sentiments among the netters? It is against Goanet rules to use this network for your communal agenda.Secondly, Santosh’s post has deviated from the main topic of ‘science for sale’ and is on peer review process which is administrative and was not the original topic of discussion. This symptom of flitting ideas of the mind is not conducive of a healthy discussion. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale
-- Santosh wrote: I am attaching herewith the Boutron et al JAMA paper discussed by Mark Hyman in Huffington Post. People with medical background on this list, or for that matter, people with scientific background, should be able to recognize quite well that Hyman has misrepresented many methodological and technical aspects of the JAMA paper in his article. In fact, he has resorted to more spin than the targets of the paper. * No offense meant. But let the chips fall where they may. - GL responds: Thank you for sending us this article from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). I perused it. As many know, America is big into RCTs (Randomized Clinical Trials). So it is interesting that the authors of this study which critically analysis RCTs are from UK (Oxford) and France (Paris). Credit goes to JAMA for accepting their paper; which also reflects the quality and detailed analysis in the study. The paper essentially is a rebuke of the medical-scientific establishment (including medical statisticians) in the USA and elsewhere. RCT is the best available methodology (to remove bias of physician and patient)in selecting the better treatment. I can give a whole lecture why the prognostic parameters used for patient randomization in RCT is inadequate at best. Hence spinning the results and conclusions of the trial is further exacerbating the issue of deciding one treatment (usually new drug) benefits over another. In my next post I will highlight the data and conclusions of the paper you have asked us to review. In the past you have accused me of being unable to read and interpret scientific-medical papers. Now you claim Dr. Hyman, has misrepresented many methodological and technical aspects of the JAMA paper in his article. In fact, he has resorted to more spin than the targets of the paper. So here is another victim of your smear. It is nice to know that I am not the only one who is a victim of your smear, distortions and bogus comments Of late, I have noticed that quite a few of us have been checking your web-link references in your responses. Some have replied that the links are unconnected to the topic being discussed or that your quotes or interpretation of the links are incorrect. You have corrected yourself, in some posts. Frankly we have no time to chase your bogus Copy and Paste references. You got to do your own home-work more diligently before wasting our time. And as far as the cancer experts you quote as personal communication, I can give them my opinion if they post their views directly on Goanet instead of having you misrepresent their views as well. Analysis of JAMA paper to follow. Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
SANTOSH HELEKAR wrote: BTW, has anyone noticed that this radiation oncologist believes he is an expert on the history of the European Inquisition, among many other things? RESPONSE : First and foremost, nowhere in Gilbert’s post has he written anything about ‘European Inquisition’. If Santosh does not know the meaning of the English word ‘Inquisition’, I would suggest he surf the dictionaries on the network, cut and paste it next time. Or is he trying to instigate communal sentiments among the netters? It is against Goanet rules to use this network for your communal agenda.Secondly, Santosh’s post has deviated from the main topic of ‘science for sale’ and is on peer review process which is administrative and was not the original topic of discussion. This symptom of flitting ideas of the mind is not conducive of a healthy discussion. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
--- On Tue, 10/5/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Hence Dr. Hyman's and similar articles are on-spot; both challenging the medical establishment as well as directly educating the public; who often demand the newest drug seen on TV. The material appended below confirms once again what I have told you about Gilbert before. So let me get back to the original issue of credibility that I had raised in relation to the article by the above-referenced guy named Mark Hyman on a political website (Please see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dangerous-spin-doctors-7-_b_747325.html). I point out below specific problems that ought to be evident to any unbiased knowledgeable person who takes the trouble of comparing his rhetoric with actual facts. 1. The author Hyman uses his Huffington Post article bashing the mainstream medical profession to promote and sell his own alternative medical products consisting of books, DVDs, vitamins, etc under his untested and non-recognized pseudoscientific marketing scheme called UltraWellness. Here is the blatant publicity-seeking and profiteering commercial link that he provides in the very article in which he warns the public about subtle conflicts of interest of medical professionals: http://drhyman.com/dangerous-spin-doctors-7-steps-to-protect-yourself-from-deception-2407/ A sensible person ought to see through this swindle, and ask: So how is he better than the medical professionals and pharmaceutical manufacturers that he is railing against? 2. He has distorted and misrepresented the methodological and technical aspects of the Boutron et al JAMA paper that is the main thrust of his discussion in the Huffington Post article. In fact, he has resorted to more spin than the targets of the paper. For example, here is what he claims the paper did: QUOTE In a recent report in the Journal of the American Medical Association French scientists reviewed over 600 studies published in the top medical journals during an entire year, and analyzed in detail 72 of those they considered to be of the highest quality. In their analysis they only included studies with the most respected and reliable design--the randomized controlled trial. UNQUOTE .Mark Hyman Contrast this what the authors of the paper actually say they did: QUOTE We included only trials with nonsignificant results (ie, P or = .05) for all primary outcomes. When no formal statistical analyses were reported for the primary outcomes, we attempted to calculate the effect size and confidence interval for the primary outcomes, and the article was included if the estimated treatment effect was not statistically significant. If we could not calculate the effect size using the published data, the article was excluded. UNQUOTE ..Boutron et al, 2010 3. Hyman misleads his readers by exaggerating the conclusions of the study and deliberately avoiding to mention its serious limitations stated by the authors themselves. Please see the quotes in the actual paper below: QUOTE Our study has several limitations. First, the assessment of spin necessarily involved some subjectivity, because the strategies used for spin were highly variable and interpretation depended on the context. Interpretation of trial results is not a straightforward process, and some disagreement may arise, even among authors. UNQUOTE ..Boutron et al, 2010 QUOTE We cannot say to what extent the spin we identified might have been deliberately misleading, the result of lack of knowledge, or both. Nor are we able to draw conclusions about the possible effect of the spin on peer reviewers’ and readers’ interpretations. UNQUOTE ..Boutron et al, 2010 4. Finally, Hyman misleads readers by making them believe that controversies at the cutting edge of medical research arise only because of conflicts of interest and because of the unscrupulous nature of academic medical professionals and scientists. Cheers, Santosh --- On Tue, 10/5/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Dr. Ferdinando, welcome to goanet, where your writings (above) regarding science is a breath of fresh air. For a long time it was one-eyed man is a king among the blind. So please do not tell the king that, he has no clothes. Not after he spent more than a decade giving goanetters 'Scientific Literacy' - his version. So to state there is 'Scientific illiteracy' in this forum is blasphemy, which in 2010 will get you to the court of Scientific Inquisition. As proof of this, look at Santosh's response posted below. He suggest, let's forget about Dr. Hyman's article; and talk about something totally unconnected (Drs. David Gorski's and Robert Burton's articles); ani tea bhair respond with data and references. I am supposed to do this as 'pirachit' / punishment for forwarding a link to a very well written article - a.k.a. spreading subversive material on science. Spend your time
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
--- Dr. Ferdinando wrote: It is quite evident that jc has separated Theology and religion; and who is entitled to discuss what. If that is so may I ask what was the topic of discussion as evident from the ‘Subject’? Was is surgical procedures, line of treatment, differential diagnoses, etc. which only medical doctors have qualifications to discuss; or was it a topic for layman’s benefit that did not necessitate qualification? It is also evident from his previous post that one of the three is labeled as ‘quack’. That too, a sentence in the negative, which is a trait of negativism; one of the sign of certain behavioural disorder. Was this labeling of a netter as ‘Quack’ not an intimidation? jc response to this is obviously going to be that he did not label any one, but only said that two of them are not. It is very obvious that a couple of netters on Goanet are hell bent in trying to tell the Forum that they have absolute knowledge in all branches of Science, and will go to all extent, even by deviating from the main topic of discussion to satisfy themselves that they have won the discussion. When a learned person cannot conduct a discussion in a rational manner, it only affirms the possibility of disorder. --- GL responds: I tried shortening the above post. Yet, every sentence was so appropo that I could not reduce it by much. Yet it is worth a re-read by goanetters. Dr. Ferdinando, another brilliant post precisely diagnosing the problem(s). You have done so in such a short time on goanet. To quote you as physician saying, a sentence in the negative, which is a trait of negativism; one of the sign of certain behavioural disorder. Was this labeling of a netter as ‘Quack’ not an intimidation? ani magir When a learned person cannot conduct a discussion in a rational manner, it only affirms the possibility of disorder. JC wrote the difference between religion and theology; and in the process weaseled out of the question of physicians arguing about god. Perhaps his 'golden silence' on this issue is a suggestion to his physician-friends not to wander beyond their field; lest they too sound like quacks (some spoon feeding for JC's friends.:=)) Let me give some advice when dealing with these difficult situations. I thank god that I am not married to or living with such types. Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
J. COLACO jc said: Interesting discussion between a reputed Oncologist, a brilliant Neuroscientist and a good Priest. Two among them are definitely not quacks. J. COLACO jc said: a: I know many priests (mainly Jesuit) who possess recognised qualifications in the field of medicine. These priests are not quacks. Quacks are quacks. Do I need to spell out the meaning of the term quacks? b: Religion is a personal matter. Anyone (including a doctor) can talk about religion or the absence of faith in religion. c: Theology, on the other hand, is the area that many priests have specialised in. It would be daft for a doctor to talk about Theology unless he was also a priest like the Rev Drs. (Jesuits), I know. RESPONSE: It is quite evident that jc has separated Theology and religion; and who is entitled to discuss what. If that is so may I ask what was the topic of discussion as evident from the ‘Subject’? Was is surgical procedures, line of treatment, differential diagnoses, etc. which only medical doctors have qualifications to discuss; or was it a topic for layman’s benefit that did not necessitate qualification? It is also evident from his previous post that one of the three is labeled as ‘quack’. That too, a sentence in the negative, which is a trait of negativism; one of the sign of certain behavioural disorder. Was this labeling of a netter as ‘Quack’ not an intimidation? jc response to this is obviously going to be that he did not label any one, but only said that two of them are not. It is very obvious that a couple of netters on Goanet are hell bent in trying to tell the Forum that they have absolute knowledge in all branches of Science, and will go to all extent, even by deviating from the main topic of discussion to satisfy themselves that they have won the discussion. When a learned person cannot conduct a discussion in a rational manner, it only affirms the possibility of disorder. As some netter on this Forum had said: “Never argue with an idiot, he will pull you down to his level, and then win the argument at his level.” Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
At last, it is refreshing to read something that is sensible and based on sound knowledge about the peer review process from someone else who, like Jose and me, is genuinely familiar with it. Contrast what Jeevan has written below with the boorish crap from Gilbert, Fr. Ivo, Gabriel and Dr. Falcao in this thread. Please note the following statement, for example: QUOTE And the same for peer reviewers who are all to often in an I scratch your back and you scratch mine. UNQUOTE Gilbert Lawrence Do you think this guy has any clue that peer reviewers of all reputed scientific journals are required to be anonymous from the standpoint of the author(s), as well as each other? Obviously not, but that does not prevent him from writing nonsense on Goanet. BTW, has anyone noticed that this radiation oncologist believes he is an expert on the history of the European Inquisition, among many other things? Cheers, Santosh --- On Mon, 10/4/10, Jeevan R jeevan...@gmail.com wrote: In recognized and respected Journals, the peer review process is performed by more than three Referees who are specialized and experts in the area under study. If there are conflicting reviews than the Editor usually gets further opinions from other experts in the field. Besides, even if the paper goes through and is published, experts can still jump in to publish their opinions on it or the paper could be revoked if the work is fraud or plagiarized--such things have happened several times even in top journals with high impact factor such as Nature and Science.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Two interesting quote about peer review, in which we sometimes have near-theological faith in our day and age: There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print. -- Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association [Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J (March 19, 2003). Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Call for Research. JAMA 289 (11): 1438. doi:10.1001/jama.289.11.1438] The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. -- Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet [Horton, Richard (2000). Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. MJA 172 (4): 148–9. PMID 10772580] Frederick Noronha :: +91-9822122436 :: +91-832-2409490 On 4 October 2010 05:34, Gabriel de Figueiredo gdefigueir...@yahoo.com.au wrote: That is peer review of today, I presume ... And another word used nowadays is consensus among scientists ... - Original Message From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com To: goa...@goanet.org Sent: Mon, 4 October, 2010 4:13:05 AM Subject: [Goanet] Science for sale ... And the same for peer reviewers who are all to often in an I scratch your back and you scratch mine.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
--- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo gdefigueir...@yahoo.com.au wrote: That is peer review of today, I presume ... And another word used nowadays is consensus among scientists ... Looks like another human caused global warming denier. The Huffington Post does not look kindly upon this particular species. On climate change it regards the scientists as the good guys, not these anti-intellectual deniers at the other end of the ideological spectrum. Cheers, Santosh
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Peer review is a process of examining the acceptability of a scientific article for publication. It consists of a critical reading and evaluation of a research paper by a panel of experts. It is therefore similar to the evaluation of test papers carried out by examiners, or of performances in sports and talent competitions by referees. Reasonable people ought to recognize that there is no other way of determining and rewarding quality and excellence in human accomplishments than these well-accepted methods. Naturally, as with anything that involves human beings, these methods are not perfect, and are not immune to human error and vice. But the soundness and rectitude of science, as it is practiced today, is evidenced by the fact that peer review is neither the only nor the most important method of evaluating the validity of new scientific findings. For a scientific finding to be accepted as valid, it has to be independently reproduced or replicated by other scientists on multiple occasions, and under many different conditions, if applicable. The break neck pace at which scientific progress and technological advancements are occurring today provides ample testimony that the two pronged system of peer review and independent reproducibility are working beautifully. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Frederick Noronha fredericknoro...@gmail.com wrote: Two interesting quote about peer review, in which we sometimes have near-theological faith in our day and age: There seems to be no study too fragmented, no hypothesis too trivial, no literature too biased or too egotistical, no design too warped, no methodology too bungled, no presentation of results too inaccurate, too obscure, and too contradictory, no analysis too self-serving, no argument too circular, no conclusions too trifling or too unjustified, and no grammar and syntax too offensive for a paper to end up in print. -- Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of Journal of the American Medical Association [Rennie D, Flanagin A, Smith R, Smith J (March 19, 2003). Fifth International Congress on Peer Review and Biomedical Publication: Call for Research. JAMA 289 (11): 1438. doi:10.1001/jama.289.11.1438] The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. -- Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet [Horton, Richard (2000). Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. MJA 172 (4): 148–9. PMID 10772580] Frederick Noronha :: +91-9822122436 :: +91-832-2409490 On 4 October 2010 05:34, Gabriel de Figueiredo gdefigueir...@yahoo.com.au wrote: That is peer review of today, I presume ... And another word used nowadays is consensus among scientists ... - Original Message From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com To: goa...@goanet.org Sent: Mon, 4 October, 2010 4:13:05 AM Subject: [Goanet] Science for sale ... And the same for peer reviewers who are all to often in an I scratch your back and you scratch mine.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Ivo icso...@bsnl.in wrote: **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.Let us avoid this scientific illiteracy on this Forum. RESPONSE: I totally agree with Pe. Ivo and Gilbert and also that there is “Scientific illiteracy’ in this forum as quoted. The discussion will not be rational and also not on the topic the writer tries to convey; obviously as all the critics who presume to have knowledge go nit picking here. It is really regrettable as instead of sharing knowledge on this Forum, netters are desisted from posting facts that are worth the read. Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
From: J. Colaco jc cola...@gmail.com Ivo icso...@bsnl.in wrote: **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.Let us avoid this scientific illiteracy on this Forum. response: Interesting discussion between a reputed Oncologist, a brilliant Neuroscientist and a good Priest. Two among them are definitely not quacks. **Precisely, DrJC, as usual, has missed the point. Any quack knows about medical companies today. In fact, there has been no discussion so far between the two 'experts': a sincere oncologist and the known neuroscientist. The reputed Oncologist did not get the right answer from the brilliant Neuroscientist, in this statement the good Priets is correct. Who is quack? The one who does not understand it, DrJC... Talk to the patients and see their reactions. An illiterate may have sensible statements about medicine or Ayodhya verdict. It is not only the lawyers or physicians that can talk. As a matter of fact, in all discussions on the TV there have been objections to the Ayodhya verdict. If there had been a discussion with the Judges who gave the verdict, all these points would come out. That is the reason why the issue is not considered to be settled, but is going to the Supreme Court. If, according to JC, only experts can give their opinion, this would not happen. What is being said is to be examined. As a Catholic priest, I have also the right to speak about all the issues. Read, investigate, learn, give your opinion if it is already matured... DrJC usually acts as somebody who dances at the tune of so-called real physicians. He will not contribute to the discussion (rarely he does), but will create sensation. This time let the discussion go on, so that we shall see whether Dr.Mark Hyman is medically correct or not in the article that was brought up by Dr.Gilbert. Regards. Fr.Ivo
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
In recognized and respected Journals, the peer review process is performed by more than three Referees who are specialized and experts in the area under study. If there are conflicting reviews than the Editor usually gets further opinions from other experts in the field. Besides, even if the paper goes through and is published, experts can still jump in to publish their opinions on it or the paper could be revoked if the work is fraud or plagiarized--such things have happened several times even in top journals with high impact factor such as Nature and Science. The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability — not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong. -- Richard Horton, editor of the British medical journal The Lancet [Horton, Richard (2000). Genetically modified food: consternation, confusion, and crack-up. MJA 172 (4): 148–9. PMID 10772580]
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Unable to refute the data in the original article we are seeing a lot of the usual bobbing and weaving with 'shoot the messenger'. The scientist losses his insights to seek the truth, when it comes to seeing the speck in our own eye. Another great example of: The Jack of all subjects has become the Master of smear, distortions and bogus comments. So please continue with what you do best. I cannot compete with the master. Regards, GL --- Santosh Helekar This is rich. Here is a guy who is telling others not to attack him in a post in which he viciously attacks others, including eminent neurologists, psychiatrists and scientists. Why does Gilbert not follow his own advice and refute specific points in Drs. David Gorski's and Robert Burton's articles with data and references? Why does he abuse physicians, scientists, and the medical profession, instead? - Gilbert Lawrence: 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. ... 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.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
On 4 October 2010 22:11, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Unable to refute the data in the original article we are seeing a lot of the usual bobbing and weaving with 'shoot the messenger'. The scientist losses his insights to seek the truth, when it comes to seeing the speck in our own eye.. Regards, GL Dear Gilbert, This is what the passage correctly says Matthew 7 http://nlt.scripturetext.com/matthew/8.htm New Living Translation -- *3* http://bible.cc/matthew/7-3.htm“And why worry about a speck in your friend’s eyec http://nlt.scripturetext.com/matthew/7.htm#footnotesc when you have a log in your own? *4* http://bible.cc/matthew/7-4.htmHow can you think of saying to your friend,dhttp://nlt.scripturetext.com/matthew/7.htm#footnotesd‘Let me help you get rid of that speck in your eye,’ when you can’t see past the log in your own eye? *5* http://bible.cc/matthew/7-5.htmHypocrite! First get rid of the log in your own eye; then you will see well enough to deal with the speck in your friend’s eye. http://nlt.scripturetext.com/matthew/7.htm -- DEV BOREM KORUM Gabe Menezes.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
In response to this from me: Interesting discussion between a reputed Oncologist, a brilliant Neuroscientist and a good Priest. Two among them are definitely not quacks. Gilbert Lawrence wrote: Jose. if priests talking about medicine are quacks, what should doctors talking about religion be called? JC's RESPONSE: Gilbert, Please be advised that IMHO, your statement (quoted above) is a non-starter as it makes assumptions which can easily be contested. a: I know many priests (mainly Jesuit) who possess recognised qualifications in the field of medicine. These priests are not quacks. Quacks are quacks. Do I need to spell out the meaning of the term quacks? b: Religion is a personal matter. Anyone (including a doctor) can talk about religion or the absence of faith in religion. c: Theology, on the other hand, is the area that many priests have specialised in. It would be daft for a doctor to talk about Theology unless he was also a priest like the Rev Drs. (Jesuits), I know. Now, what is it you were saying again? (Your blind opposition to Dr. Santosh Helekar his expressed opposition to Plagiarism having been noted) jc
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
While there is some truth in what is said in the Huffington Post article linked below, one also has to be skeptical about political and ideological websites such as Huffington Post and the authors that write on them. 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/ Cheers, Santosh --- On Sat, 10/2/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Medicine and Science for sale Please see link below. Following the article please see the feedback from readers http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mark-hyman/dangerous-spin-doctors-7-_b_747325.html Regards, GL
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com 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
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
Ivo icso...@bsnl.in wrote: **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.Let us avoid this scientific illiteracy on this Forum. response: Interesting discussion between a reputed Oncologist, a brilliant Neuroscientist and a good Priest. Two among them are definitely not quacks. jc
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
That is peer review of today, I presume ... And another word used nowadays is consensus among scientists ... - Original Message From: Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com To: goa...@goanet.org Sent: Mon, 4 October, 2010 4:13:05 AM Subject: [Goanet] Science for sale ... And the same for peer reviewers who are all to often in an I scratch your back and you scratch mine.
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
--- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Please do not respond by attacking me; as I am not the topic of this thread.:=)) .. 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. This is rich. Here is a guy who is telling others not to attack him in a post in which he viciously attacks others, including eminent neurologists, psychiatrists and scientists. Why does Gilbert not follow his own advice and refute specific points in Drs. David Gorski's and Robert Burton's articles with data and references? Why does he abuse physicians, scientists, and the medical profession, instead? Any sensible person would recognize that if he/she is asked to read a scientific article of an author on a website, he/she has to be assured of the scientific credibility of the author and the website. The articles I had provided allow people to find out whether Huffington Post is a scientific website or not, and whether Mark Hyman is an unbiased trustworthy author or not, from the standpoint of reporting on medical science. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: 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
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
--- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Please do not respond by attacking me; as I am not the topic of this thread.:=)) .. 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. This is rich. Here is a guy who is telling others not to attack him in a post in which he viciously attacks others, including eminent neurologists, psychiatrists and scientists. Why does Gilbert not follow his own advice and refute specific points in Drs. David Gorski's and Robert Burton's articles with data and references? Why does he abuse physicians, scientists, and the medical profession, instead? Any sensible person would recognize that if he/she is asked to read a scientific article of an author on a website, he/she has to be assured of the scientific credibility of the author and the website. The articles I had provided allow people to find out whether Huffington Post is a scientific website or not, and whether Mark Hyman is an unbiased trustworthy author or not, from the standpoint of reporting on medical science. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: 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
Re: [Goanet] Science for sale ...
--- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: Please do not respond by attacking me; as I am not the topic of this thread.:=)) .. 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. This is rich. Here is a guy who is telling others not to attack him in a post in which he viciously attacks others, including eminent neurologists, psychiatrists and scientists. Why does Gilbert not follow his own advice and refute specific points in Drs. David Gorski's and Robert Burton's articles with data and references? Why does he abuse physicians, scientists, and the medical profession, instead? Any sensible person would recognize that if he/she is asked to read a scientific article of an author on a website, he/she has to be assured of the scientific credibility of the author and the website. The articles I had provided allow people to find out whether Huffington Post is a scientific website or not, and whether Mark Hyman is an unbiased trustworthy author or not, from the standpoint of reporting on medical science. Cheers, Santosh --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence gilbert2...@yahoo.com wrote: 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
