Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 11:47:09
In reply to Re: Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition » Krazy Kat, posted by akc on January 11, 2002, at 19:17:46
> It bothers me that she & similar people can come on a respected forum where others are seriously looking for answers about depression & post such misleading information. If it was simply a matter of her honestly believing in the benefits of sound nutrition & she personally chose not to use medication, I'd be happy with it. But she's in on a pyramid scheme, perhaps leading people who do need the medical health to the company she works for.
>
> IsoMI agree, it's trickier when there's a conflict of interest. Which is what makes this different than recommending movies. OTOH, just because someone might benefit from the sale of a product doesn't make it a bad product. Should it be against the rules for people who work for drug companies to post here? Those who own stock in drug companies?
*Misleading* information is a different problem. Can you give me an example of something she said that you'd consider misleading?
> If you allow the continued push of such products on the board, those who came here because they believed they had found a supportive community where they could get some rational (for the most part) feed back, will look elsewhereIt's the *pushing* per se that's the problem? Haven't others advocated the use of particular products? Would you say she's *pressured* others? That I would consider uncivil...
And what about people who'd like rational feedback on supplements or whatever?
> I hope you make a decision that doesn't cost anyone his or her health or life.
>
> akcMaybe that thread's already *helped* sjb to make a more informed decision regarding her health?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89718.html
> If a person comes in touting an unproven product, publishing pieces of "papers" saying the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are conspiring against patients to line their pockets, and a single person quits taking his or her meds, goes into a suicidal depression, and takes his or her life -- yeah, I put that on Dr. Bob and every other person on this board who sits back and doesn't say something.I sure don't want anyone to take his or her life! However:
1. Just because a product is "unproven" doesn't mean it's a bad product. And at what point should it be considered "proven"?
2. I don't see it as my role to warrant the merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose of any products (to decide whether to consider them proven or not :-).
The idea of this site is to help each other, not to get help from me. I'm not an expert on these products, anyway. YMMV: they might work for some people and not others. And of course it's a legal can of worms.
3. Pharmaceutical companies (their shareholders) do want to line their pockets -- as do doctors. "Conspire" is a little strong, but there's at least one relatively recent example of a company suppressing research not in its interest:
http://thyroid.about.com/library/weekly/aa012798.htm
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/gouging.shtml4. I completely agree, the answer is *not* just to sit back. Thankfully, that doesn't happen very much here. :-)
But I don't think the answer is to be uncivil, either...
> The message being touted scares me because I know how irrational at times I become when in the midst of a bad episode, and am capable of making some really bad decisions.
>
> akcOne approach is regulation, or trying to control bad information. Another is education, or trying to help people make good decisions (partly by recognizing bad information). You can guess which side I'm on! In fact, a number of you have already contributed to a nice discussion of this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:2609
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20011216/msgs/2636.html