"If you want to drive the Bus..."

[moggie]

Article at http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2005/07/if-you-want-to-drive-bus.htmlogspot.com/2005/07/if-you-want-to-drive-bus.html about lay criticisms of science. Extract:

This is a phenomenon that defies common sense - the very same people who take offense at being told they lack the proper education to make scientific and medical assertions are often "professionals" of another stripe - MBA's ... lawyers, and stock brokers - who would be aghast at the suggestion that a neophyte off the street could do their job with equal skill. Imagine their outrage (or amusement) if I, a humble biologist, announced that I was as competent as they were to, say, formulate a business plan for a multinational corporation, set up a tax-sheltered annuity or render an opinion on federal law.

The author gives an example from the mercury and autism debate.

[beam me up scottie]

1. Links not working, Moggie.

[moggie]

2. Oops

I can't edit the post, but here's the corrected link:

http://photoninthedarkness.blogspot.com/2005/07/if-you-want-to-drive-bus.html

Thanks for pointing that out. Could have sworn I'd previewed it!

[beam me up scottie]

3. Excellent post!

Postponing my showdown with Dr. Hornig's autistic mice yet again, I would like to address a phenomenon that is nearly ubiquitous in the "alternative" medicine world. I am speaking of the concept that anybody - regardless of their education, training or experience - is qualified to speak knowingly and render expert opinion on scientific and medical matters, as long as they have personal experience of the subject under discussion.
***

The sad fact of the matter is that it takes a certain amount of education to be a scientist, or even a doctor. There are facts to learn, techniques to practice, skills to acquire and mental habits to develop. You can't get these from watching "ER", "CSI Miami" or even the Discovery Channel.
***

OK, this isn't "PC" - it's not "polite" to tell people that they don't know what they're talking about. But it's true! Just because someone has an autistic child does not make them an expert in the science of autism. Sure, they know a whole lot about raising an autistic child, but that does not give them any insight into the biochemistry or neurophysiology of autism.

[WoodrowFan]

4. Self-Appointed Experts

http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/SelfApptdExp.htm

[beam me up scottie]

5. Science, Pseudoscience, and Irrationalism

What a great source.
Thanks for the link.

[moggie]

7. That's entertaining

The author is a signatory to Project Steve, a wicked piece of anti-creationism:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

[Celebration]

6. The bus thing!!

"In other words, if you want to drive the bus, you need to go to bus-driver school, first."

Yeah, and I would say, be very, very aware of the bus driving schools that are controlled by the bus manufacturers. You know, you might learn to gloss over the defects in the manufacturing process--unwittingly, of course.

[beam me up scottie]

8. You're right!!! At least wear protection!

[Celebration]

9. Bus drivers beware

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/326/7400/1202

Free newspapers for doctors depend completely on income from pharmaceutical advertising, but many journals also depend heavily on such advertising.

The advertising is often misleading.

Editorial coverage is much more valuable to drug companies than advertising, and scientific studies can be manipulated in many ways to give results favourable to companies.

Many medical journals have a substantial income from supplements and reprints paid for by drug companies.

http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

The Problem: Less to Do with Advertising, More to Do with Sponsored Trials

The most conspicuous example of medical journals' dependence on the pharmaceutical industry is the substantial income from advertising, but this is, I suggest, the least corrupting form of dependence. The advertisements may often be misleading and the profits worth millions, but the advertisements are there for all to see and criticise. Doctors may not be as uninfluenced by the advertisements as they would like to believe, but in every sphere, the public is used to discounting the claims of advertisers.
The much bigger problem lies with the original studies, particularly the clinical trials, published by journals.

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/04/04/13.php

With financial ties to nearly two dozen drug and biotech companies, Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff may hold some sort of record among academic clinicians for the most conflicts of interest. A psychiatrist, a prominent researcher, and chairman of the department of psychiatry and behavioral science at Emory University in Atlanta, Nemeroff receives funding for his academic research from Eli Lilly, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Wyeth-Ayerst--indeed from virtually every pharmaceutical house that manufactures a drug to treat mental illness. He also serves as a consultant to drug and biotech companies, owns their stocks, and is a member of several speakers' bureaus, delivering talks--for a fee--to other physicians on behalf of the companies' products.

But it was just three of Nemeroff's many financial entanglements that caught the eye of Dr. Bernard J. Carroll last spring while reading a paper by the Emory doctor in the prominent scientific journal, Nature Neuroscience. In that article, Nemeroff and a co-author reviewed roughly two dozen experimental treatments for psychiatric disorders, opining that some of the new treatments were disappointing, while others showed great promise in relieving symptoms. What struck Carroll, a psychiatrist in Carmel, Calif., was that three of the experimental treatments praised in the article were ones that Nemeroff stood to profit from--including a transdermal patch for the drug lithium, for which Nemeroff holds the patent.

Carroll and a colleague, Dr. Robert T. Rubin, wrote to the editor of Nature Neuroscience, which is just one of a family of journals owned by the British firm, Nature Publishing Group, pointing out the journal's failure to disclose Nemeroff's interests in the products he praised. They asked the editor to publish their letter, so that readers could decide for themselves whether or not the author's financial relationships might have tainted his opinion. After waiting five months for their letter to appear, the doctors went to The New York Times with their story--a move that sparked a furor in academic circles, and offered the public yet another glimpse into conflict of interest, one of the most contentious and bitter debates in medicine.

In his defense, Nemeroff told the Times he would have been happy to list his (many) relationships with private industry--if only the journal had asked. "If there is a fault here," he said, "it is with the journal's policy," which did not require authors of review articles to disclose their conflicts of interest.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4696316

Government funding for medical research is not expected to increase in coming years and could decline. Medical schools will be more reliant on private, for-profit industry for funding. That raises concerns about academic freedom and restrictions on what researchers can and cannot say in print and in public.

Snip

In NPR's story about Merck's influence over independent doctors and medical schools, reporter Snigdha Prakash details how one drug company applied pressure to censor a critic of a popular painkiller.
A former Merck employee at the center of the story, Dr. Louis Sherwood, made phone calls to the department heads at several medical schools, complaining about faculty members who were critical of Vioxx. Sherwood told NPR in an interview that no threats were ever made to cut off funds or influence a person's academic position.
But whether threats are made in these situations, academics do feel pressure.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12533125&query_hl=4

Financial relationships among industry, scientific investigators, and academic institutions are widespread. Conflicts of interest arising from these ties can influence biomedical research in important ways.

[beam me up scottie]

10. Sorry, but the quacks, pseudo-scientists and woo woos herders are far more

corrupt than the legitimate scientists and doctors.

They will gladly risk lives in order to "convert" the sheep.

The fact that you are suggesting that we be suspicious of the advice of medical professionals speaks volumes about your agenda.

I really hope that your professional duties do not include patient care.

Suggesting a diabetic participate in a study that would require him to eat a significant amount of chocolate isn't something a real medical professional would do.

[Celebration]

11. your sources?

Missing.

Corrupt people of all stripes.
Money talks. Beware.
Enjoy cocoa but count carbs.


Recipe for cocoa with appropriate dietary information

http://www.diabetesselfmanagement.com/article.cfm?sid=2&tid=96&aid=576

Or take the cocoa sans sugar for a carb free food.

[beam me up scottie]

12. Quackwatch.com - you'll probably recognize quite a few of the quacks.

Beware, it's not a nice place for pseudo-science peddlers or woo woos.

Nice try on the chocolate study, but you didn't suggest sugar free cocoa, now did you ?

[Desertrose]

22. but the skepto-fundies all love it there.

Reinforces their world views.

how nice.

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

25. World views? Is that what you call the truth? Interesting.

So much hate you people have.
It's borderline obsessive.

There are medications, you know.
And not faith based ones either.

[Desertrose]

30. Because you say your "world view" is truth, doesn't make it so

How interesting that when you call others derogatory names and ridicule their world views, its truth, but if the tables get turned suddenly it is hate and borderline obsession on the other person's part.....

:rofl:

All you know of me is your preconceived idea of what you think I am.
So is that truth or anything resembling what really is... to prejudge another because of what you *assume* they believe? I wonder if that could possibly be considered hatred & borderline obssesive....

and I don't do meds....but don't think I'm the one who needs 'em.....

[beam me up scottie]

34. No, the fact that it's THE TRUTH makes it so.

You really should attempt to learn some facts before you bash science, relying on emotion just makes your argument that much easier to dismiss.

See, science is fact-based knowledge.

Pseudo-science is based on superstition and ignorance.

Even calling it "knowledge" is a crime.

Keep at it though, I understand some doctors consider it therapeutic to purge that hate.

[Desertrose]

45. you really don't read my replies before you post, do you?

if you do, you sure never respond to what is actually said...

sigh.....I have not "bashed science"...I have only questioned some things.


"relying on emotion just makes your argument that much easier to dismiss."
Yes by looking at this rant, I can see that it does.

....maybe you better look a bit closer at your own posts and how you are always mentioning having to purge hate.

[beam me up scottie]

48. What can I say, you've inspired me.

I promise to try not to ridicule pseudo-science in the future.

right.

:rofl:

Sorry, pseudo-science begs to be ridiculed.

In fact, it needs to be.

Kudos to Dr. Stephen Barrett and his colleagues.
:toast:

[Desertrose]

52. very clear that you are gonna do what you do

... keep on the same track....easier that way...to follow the tracks already laid down for you.

hmmm...do ya ever think about who else uses ridicule and belittling to eliminate any other ideas, thoughts or possibilities?

probably not. oh well.

[Desertrose]

21. the man who heads quackwatch is also a Fellow on CSICOP!!

" In addition to heading Quackwatch, he is vice-president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, a scientific advisor to the American Council on Science and Health, and a Fellow of the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP)."
http://www.quackwatch.org/10Bio/bio.html


CSICOP, the skepto-fundy activistist group, would be completely unbiased now wouldn't they?? and of course there would be no blind loyalty to all things "science" , right? Talk about agendas....

Give me a break.

[beam me up scottie]

26. GASP! You mean Paranormal claims are suspect too?

Say it ain't so!!!
Where do the lies end?
OH THE HUMANITY!!!

:rofl:

[greyl]

27. So what?

Would the fact that you contribute to more than one Democratic organization mean that your educated assertions about politics are worthless because of bias? No, that's illogical.

And yes, there is an agenda. An urgent and humanitarian one.

[Desertrose]

32. We agree there is an agenda

we just don't agree on what it is.

Urgent and humanitarian?
Oh please.

more like to make sure that there is only one way of thinking....

[greyl]

35. Are you casting aspersions on critical thinking

in the Science Forum?

Or are you saying you found scientific errors at quackwatch?

[beam me up scottie]

36. BWAHAHAHAHAHA !

Yep, people who seek the truth and work to expose ignorance and greed are really working for the dark side.

I had no idea you were so threatened by Quackwatch.

I'll have to start posting more of their articles.

That way, everyone can see their "agenda"

[Desertrose]

42. threatened? good grief, where do you come up with this wacky stuff?

Sure wish you'd quit readingthings into my posts that are simply not there.
You must be missing a big chunk of logical thinking to be able to jump to the conclusions you do.


Actually I am all for people to expose truth and ignorance and greed. I just don't feel they are all always above it themselves.

Have you found a group to be completely above it all? If so...wow...how hard is it to suspend your belief to buy that?

[beam me up scottie]

44. This is the science forum, not the "group to be completely above it all"

Science
Forum
The

I'm starting to understand why Dr. Barrett is dedicated to exposing fraudsters and quacks.

Very few physicians have the time to discredit pseudo-healers and many people seem to believe this is the same thing as endorsing them.

[beam me up scottie]

31. Here is Quackwatch's "Agenda" summed up in it's Mission Statement:

Mission Statement
Stephen Barrett, M.D.

Quackwatch, Inc., which was a member of Consumer Federation of America from 1973 through 2003, is a nonprofit corporation whose purpose is to combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies. Its primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. Founded by Dr. Stephen Barrett in 1969 as the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud, it was incorporated in 1970. In 1997, it assumed its current name and began developing a worldwide network of volunteers and expert advisors. Our activities include:
Investigating questionable claims
Answering inquiries about products and services
Advising quackery victims
Distributing reliable publications
Reporting illegal marketing
Assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits
Improving the quality of health information on the Internet
Attacking misleading advertising on the Internet
Web Sites

The Quackwatch Web site was launched in December 1996. Our other sites are:
Acuwatch (started 2/05): The skeptical guide to acupuncture history, theories, and practices
Autism Watch (7/04): Your scientific guide to autism
Casewatch (7/04): Your guide to health fraud- and quackery-related legal matters
Chelation Watch (7/04): A skeptical view of chelation therapy
Chirobase (10/98): Your skeptical guide to chiropractic history, theories, and practices
Credential Watch (2/05): Your guide to health-related education and training
Dental Watch (6/02): Your guide to intelligent dental care
Device Watch (7/04): Your guide to questionable medical devices
Diet Scam Watch (11/04): Your guide to weight-control schemes and ripoffs
Homeowatch (11/01): Your skeptical guide to homeopathic history, theories, and practices
Infomercial Watch (7/04): A critical view of the health infomercial marketplace
Internet Health Pilot (1/02): Your gateway to reliable health information
Mental Health Watch (7/04): Your guide to the mental help marketplace
MLM Watch (1/99): The skeptical guide to multilevel marketing
Naturowatch (6/03): The skeptical guide to naturopathic history, theories, and practices
Nutriwatch (3/00): Your guide to sensible nutrition

Dr. Barrett maintains these sites with help from many volunteers. Members of our medical advisory board review articles upon request. Our web-page design was developed by Marty Mapes of Boulder Information Services. Dr. Barrett's son Daniel Barrett, a software engineer, provides general technical support.

Our Internet Service Provider is Comcation, which provides outstanding equipment, service, and technical support. Programming of the WebGlimpse search engine is maintained by Adam Baratz. We also use the excellent services of SEVENtwentyfour, Inc., whose LinkWalker spider reports broken hyperlinks once a week.
Sources of Income

The total cost of operating all of Quackwatch's sites is approximately $7,000 per year. Quackwatch, Inc., has no salaried employees. It operates with minimal expense, funded mainly by small individual donations, commissions from sales on other sites to which we refer, and profits from the sale of publications. If its income falls below what is needed for the research, the rest comes out of my pocket. Except for the sales commissions, neither Quackwatch nor I have any financial tie to any commercial or industrial organization.

There are two convenient ways to donate money to us online.
Amazon.com's "Honor System," enables visitors to make small donations of $1 to $50 to support sites they like. If you are already registered with Amazon Books, your name should appear in the box below
PayPal enables donations of any amount and charges a much lower commission, so we prefer that you use their service. If you are registered with PayPal, the donation process takes only a few seconds. If you are not, you can still donate by using your credit card.

Either way, these donations will support research, writing, and legal actions that can protect many people from being misled.

So, yes, DR, please help rid the world of this terrible evil that has no doubt saved countless lives.

Your fellow anti-scientists really need to find a more productive hobby.

Bashing legitimate medical professionals without any knowledge of the facts doesn't really help your image, you know?

But, OTOH, it sure does prove my point.

[Desertrose]

40. You know what beamieup

First of all, I can read and read the mission statement. So what. Do you always believe everything you read? I don't...no matter who says it, I use a bit of critical thinking skills to see if maybe there is a bit more behind what people say.

Quackwatch does good but it is also promotes the agenda that science (medical and otherwise) has all and the "only" answers to health. You find it hard to believe that the medical community would not appreciate it if people would find out there are alternatives and that people can regain their health without the AMA? Or perhaps you feel that one cannot be healthy through other ways....

To be so blinded by what you think someone else believes, makes its impossible to have a real conversation.

You have never asked what I believe...you just figure you already know and proceed in error from there.

SO FWIW,I am NOT anti-scientist. Not at all. I grew up in a science & medical family.I've seen how a lot of it works up close. I grew up with atheists and christians but I am neither...yet I have insight into both.. I am not blindly or stupidly against all things scientific. I am certainly able to see and appreciate all the many benefits moderns science has brought to the table. So don't dump that your derogatory crap on me.

What I am "anti" is anyone who feels they have to shut down conversations and questions because they feel they have all the answers. That their world views are the only right ones and that all the world's unknowns will be solved through what their version of science is. It is a tool like anything else and it has great value but it is not the be all and end all of all knowingness. I am "anti" those who have to ridicule others to make themselves feel better. I am "anti" those who try to shut down any opinion other than their own.



"Your fellow anti-scientists really need to find a more productive hobby.

Bashing legitimate medical professionals without any knowledge of the facts doesn't really help your image, you know?"

And actually, I think you have made my points quite well.

[beam me up scottie]

41. Sorry, not playing by your rules. You came in here and insulted us.

Now you want to cry 'foul', pick up your toys and go home?

Bye!

This is the science forum, so if it feels a little hostile to pseudo-science believers, too bad.

If people want to explore their spirituality and discuss superstitions and magic, there are other forums for that type of thing.

Have a nice day.

[Desertrose]

43. so now you are dismissing me?

"Now you want to cry 'foul', pick up your toys and go home?"
....where in the hell did you get this from my post?


and no I did not start the insults...you started with name calling and ridicule. I just got a bit tired of hearing it.

"Sorry, but the quacks, pseudo-scientists and woo woos herders..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=10088&mesg_id=10129

"Beware, it's not a nice place for pseudo-science peddlers or woo woos."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=228&topic_id=10088&mesg_id=10133


and you do not own the science forum. I don't find the forum hostile at all. I find it fascinating.

not leaving...sorry.

you have a nice day too.

[beam me up scottie]

46. Why are you bringing up other threads ? Do you have an agenda ?

Honestly, let go of that, it's bad for you.

This thread really has nothing to do with you.

Why are you so upset by it?

I really don't know where this is coming from.

Do you have something against skeptics?

Why would anybody not like us?

Except, of course, the debunkees, who have reason to resent the loss of income.

But other than the chiselers, what kind of person goes around hating people who love debunking bad science?

Fascinating.

I think I'll do a study.

[Desertrose]

47. oh good grief...they are your posts from THIS thread

I repeat- not upset by the thread...(#10 & #!12)

but I gotta admit it feels like there is more than one conversation here cause I seriously don't think you are replying to what is said in my posts ...you seem to be repeating the same things over & over that do not address the conversation at all.


You just go and do your study & try to figure out why people don't like you...and that ws your question, not mine.


and seriously...I am not upset....amused ...concerned perhaps, but definitely not upset.

[beam me up scottie]

49. You keep bringing it up, though. But not because you're upset.

Right.

I really do feel sorry for you, and I apologize.

[Desertrose]

51. actually...its you who keep bringing up

whatever it is you think I am bringing up. upset?...can't be when I am laughing at this entire exchange....too bizarrely funny....

:popcorn:

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beam me up scottie]

53. Amazing how an article about the value of an expert's opinion

verses that of an uneducated person could produce this much paranoia about the medical field.

Talk about missing the point...

[moggie]

14. Cats can be woo woo too? Who knew?

And what's with the nodule? Is that a cooling device for the awesome power of the cat brain?

[beam me up scottie]

15. Cats are more susceptible to alien mind control than humans.

They tap into their inherent paranoia.

This particular helmet has the new chem trail shield and optional balonium analyzer.

Only the best for Fluffy.

[salvorhardin]

17. I thought cats *were* aliens. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

13. I'd no idea we had so many anti-vaxers and faith based science fans here.

And people criticize the Scientologists?
These people are much more dangerous.

[salvorhardin]

16. I do a double take every time I see that term

"anti-vaxers"

Who could ever be anti-VAX?

[beam me up scottie]

18. People who trust lawyers and politicians more than physicians.

Scary, isn't it?

[moggie]

20. "Who could ever be anti-VAX?"

Anyone who did a VMS upgrade on an 11/750 using the glacially slow TU58, or watched a TU80 eat its tape, or suffered from the terrible HDA reliability of the RA81. "Nothing sucks like a VAX!"

[salvorhardin]

23. Oh, ye of little faith!

It's only because you did not believe that you experienced such tribulations. :evilgrin:

And who here among us does not long for a simpler time of industrial washing machine sized peripherals? Even ones that shared inherent characteristics for a similarly named vacuum cleaner. And do we need to mention an instruction set worthy of the great bureaucracy of the military/industrial/education complex?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

19. It's not only science

People who have never been in a classroom since they graduated from high school think they can tell teachers how to do their job.

People who earn high hourly fees (lawyers, business people) balk at paying a professional interpreter or translator and try to make do with someone who sort of speaks the foreign language, preferably someone who will "volunteer" instead of submitting an invoice. It really frosted me when Nike (Nike!) put out calls for volunteer interpreters when Portland hosted some of the playoff games for the Women's World Cup.

[Pepperbelly]

24. So everyone should just shut up and accept what we're told?

Okay. Sure.

[beam me up scottie]

28. Yes. That's exactly what it says; great powers of observation.

:eyes:

[greyl]

29. No, you're only supposed to read the article for comprehension.

"The real emphasis is on learning how to think"

"I was stunned. Not because this parent "talked back" to a physician - I actually enjoyed that part..."

Those two quotes from the piece contradict your strawman quite neatly.


Are you against those who want to drive buses learning how to drive a bus?

[Celebration]

33. musings

No I never drove a bus
But I can suggest
Safe speed and steering matter

[greyl]

37. You're absolutely right.

Now, when you can parallel park & merge onto the beltway in a bus,
get back to me about your skill at actually driving one. :)

[beam me up scottie]

39. Isn't that called back seat driving?

I've heard that can be dangerous...

[beam me up scottie]

38. Wow, Moggie. You never know what's going to happen when you

post an article where the author suggests that practicing medicine is best left to the professionals.

What a radical concept.

[arwalden]

54. This Is One Of My Favorite Threads Of The Year.

:rofl:

[Skinner]

55. Locking.

Boy, that was fun.