Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 20:58:33
In reply to for Dr. Bob re: Dolphin's Comments, posted by IsoM on January 12, 2002, at 17:10:50
> Dr. Bob, looking back I can see that my comments to Dolphin were uncivil due to feeling upset about losing Cam & perhaps others on this forum.
Thanks for acknowledging that. I don't like losing people, either!
> > 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?
>
> Does someone who owns stock in drug companies get free meds too.You're saying that should be the criterion? The hard thing about this job is drawing the line... Hmm, maybe that would make sense... But what if they don't admit they get the product for free?
> > *Misleading* information is a different problem. Can you give me an example of something she said that you'd consider misleading?
>
> Yes, quite a few examples actually. These comments may contain some truth to them but when they're this overblown & not backed up with references, it IS misleading.Thanks for all the examples... Now *that* was a civil, educational response!
(But remember that a lot of what gets posted isn't backed up with references, and some of it could also be considered overblown...)
> Dr. Bob, in a fairly recent Scientific American issue, there's an article titled "Baloney Detector" about distinguishing true science from pseudoscience & a related web-site http://www.skeptic.com With your permission, I'd like to condense the points in the article & post it & the web-site each time fraudulent claims are made. Would that be fine?
That would be very fine. :-) In fact, it might make a nice addition to the FAQ. Like the section on self-medication. Once some general points are laid out, it's easy to repost -- or just to link -- to them in the future. Thanks again!
Bob
poster:Dr. Bob
thread:2609
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20011216/msgs/2651.html