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


)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




) 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
<> wrote:
>
> That is peer review of today, I presume ...
>
> And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > To:
> > 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."
)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




) 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
<> wrote:
>
> That is peer review of today, I presume ...
>
> And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > To:
> > 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."
) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <> 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



)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




) 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
<> wrote:
>
> That is peer review of today, I presume ...
>
> And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > To:
> > 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."
) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <> 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



) 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 <> 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
> <>
> wrote:
> >
> > That is peer review of today, I presume ...
> >
> > And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among
> scientists ...
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > > To:
> > > 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."
>



)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




) 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
<> wrote:
>
> That is peer review of today, I presume ...
>
> And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > To:
> > 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."
) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <> 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



) 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 <> 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
> <>
> wrote:
> >
> > That is peer review of today, I presume ...
> >
> > And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among
> scientists ...
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > > To:
> > > 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."
>



) Ivo 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.

)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




) 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
<> wrote:
>
> That is peer review of today, I presume ...
>
> And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > To:
> > 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."
) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <> 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



) 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 <> 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
> <>
> wrote:
> >
> > That is peer review of today, I presume ...
> >
> > And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among
> scientists ...
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > > To:
> > > 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."
>



) Ivo 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.

) 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]
>
)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




) 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
<> wrote:
>
> That is peer review of today, I presume ...
>
> And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > To:
> > 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."
) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <> 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



) 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 <> 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
> <>
> wrote:
> >
> > That is peer review of today, I presume ...
> >
> > And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among
> scientists ...
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > > To:
> > > 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."
>



) Ivo 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.

) 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]
>
) From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <>
> Ivo <> 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




)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




) 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
<> wrote:
>
> That is peer review of today, I presume ...
>
> And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > To:
> > 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."
) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <> 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



) 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 <> 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
> <>
> wrote:
> >
> > That is peer review of today, I presume ...
> >
> > And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among
> scientists ...
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > > To:
> > > 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."
>



) Ivo 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.

) 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]
>
) From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <>
> Ivo <> 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




) 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.



)

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


) 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 <> 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
>



) Gilbert Lawrence 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










RESPONSE: This holds true for Goa also, and for the last 20 years or so, things have gone from bad to worse. It has become like hawks waiting for the kill when a patient ventures out without proper guidance. Not that there are no sincere ones, there are a few, mostly from the older generation who look at their profession in the right perspective.



Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

) 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 
> 



) From: "Gilbert Lawrence" <>
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





) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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 <> 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 
>
>



) Ivo <> 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
) That is peer review of today, I presume ...  

And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...

----- Original Message ----
> From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> To:
> 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."




) 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
<> wrote:
>
> That is peer review of today, I presume ...
>
> And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among scientists ...
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > To:
> > 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."
) --- On Sun, 10/3/10, Gabriel de Figueiredo <> 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



) 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 <> 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
> <>
> wrote:
> >
> > That is peer review of today, I presume ...
> >
> > And another word used nowadays is "consensus" among
> scientists ...
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > > From: Gilbert Lawrence <>
> > > To:
> > > 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."
>



) Ivo 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.

) 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]
>
) From: "J. Colaco < jc>" <>
> Ivo <> 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




) 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.



) On 4 October 2010 22:11, Gilbert Lawrence <> 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
>>
New Living Translation
------------------------------

*3* “And why worry about a speck in your
friend’s eyec when
you have a log in your own? *4* How can you
think of saying to your
friend,d‘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* Hypocrite!
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.
)