Posted by Alan on November 10, 2002, at 14:39:13
In reply to Re: disclosures and disclaimers, posted by oracle on November 10, 2002, at 4:48:07
> Isn't it a resonable proceedure to know an professional's affiliations, academic or otherwise?
>
> Alan
>
> In this case this doc, at least to some of us, is well known as an expert on this issue. If Lessing
> or Hawking came to discuss law or physics and we required proof of their claim to their field, that would be rude, at least to me.
>
> Also, you may not be know that this board told the last well known expert that he did not know what he was talking about, so i think is best to
> be nice to the guests lest they not give of their time freely to us.
>
> If Dr Bob picked guests who did not have info on them everywhere, then I would ask for a CV or bio. That is not the case here.
>
> I have known, as many have, that most of our studies are paid for by the drug comps. And have been for some time, ghost written by someone else and studies that don't give the right results are not published. This has been a reality for decades. Does knowing doc X worked for pill Y really help ? Do I not take pill Y if doc X told me to ? What happens if pill Y really would work ?
>
> I think if you are naive and ask the wrong questions you get taken almost every time.
> I prefer the questions like "why do some meds poop out" instead of "what med should I take".
> To me the first is more likely to get useful info and the latter may have bias but at the least is a shot in the dark.
>
============================================I used the qualifier "affiliations" - not "qualifications".
Although the two are not, as one with a reasonable and healthy amount of skepticism, seem to always be mutually exclusive.
"Why do some meds poop out?" is a legitimate question by anyone's reasoning. The answers vary greatly from doctor to doctor, school to school, company to company's school of thought.
Every doctor one meets when presented with the answer to this question by another doctor is always going to wonder and ask the same thing: "And the source is???" - and the doc's complete and responsive answer usually is qualified with an "according to....." or some other such reference, etc. I know. My closest relatives are doctors and this is standard operating proceedure - especially when dealing with psychotropic medications.
That process leads to a whole series of related questions streaming backwards to find an answers genesis...not motive as has been implied in regards to this request for a doc's self-offered transparency.
Why should we as consumers and patients expect anything less when it comes to the same process? I would assert that we perhaps should expect more from our doctors, not less, guests or not.
All that's being asked is that part of that "stream" I mentioned, especially for the relatively large non-MHP population of this board (many not as nieve as suggested by the way), affiliations be included in the equation for a true and complete analysis of the information.
Why would anyone want less information than that - especially with our own mental health at stake?
I personally am not willing to take anymore "shots in the dark" than I already have thank you.
Alan
poster:Alan
thread:8100
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/8141.html