Speaking of blogs.... | Arthritis Information

This one is my favorite. I read it everyday...

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/06/fluid_evidence_strikes_back_dr_katz_vers.php#moreGee, Lynn, he's like you and the other AFer's that take things out of context and use it to 'faux rebut' part of a post. No wonder you like him! At least he's honest about it -

He says - "applied some of my much beloved not-so-Respectful Insolence™ to large swaths of Dr. Katz's talk)." Let me translate - I'm taking the parts I want to mock and skipping the stuff that makes sense.

Of course, understanding the gist would leave him open to -

"The difference between the pseudoscientist and the scientist, the latter of whom can also be spectacularly wrong, of course, is that the scientist will eventually admit it and move on when the evidence does not support his or her cherished hypotheses. Advocates for pseudoscience like Dr. Katz will cling to their woo ever more tightly the more evidence comes in that refutes it."

And I guy like this will NEVER admit his hypotheses are incorrect therefore the other guy is a quack. Modus Pollens is the logic, right?

He goes on to say "never mind that I'm an academic surgeon with NIH and foundation funding who has done likewise" - too bad we can't figure out his name - I'd LOVE to do a random conflict of interest Google to see where this guys been bought and sold.

So, please tell me, in this paragraph here, what is the guy he's lambasting saying that's so hard to swallow?

My talk was on the importance of respecting both science, and the needs of patients- which often go on long after the availability of relevant results from randomized, clinical trials run out. My view, quite simply, is that dedication to responsible use of scientific evidence, and dedication to responsiveness to the needs of patients can, and must, be reconciled by the caring health care provider. When the applicability of clinical trial results to the care of a patient is least certain, that patient needs options, and the help of compassionate, expert guidance more, not less.

That we count?

That trials that last 3, 6, 9 months or at most 2 years may not show all the side effects that we're left with?

That possibly we might be getting sicker from the 'medical establishment' rather than getting better?

That possibly we wouldn't be turning to CAM etc. if the medical establishment was helping us?

That the studies are bought and paid for by Pharma and the scientists are paid, apparently under the table, to validate preconceived notions on how the drug is supposed to work.

That negatives in trials are hidden so that we, the patients, are not given the whole picture.

How a majority of states now have Pharma backed legislation that says we can only get 0,000 if falsified records cause injury - slightly more if it causes death?

Well, I must like quacks if I think the patient should be brought back into the picture.

Pip

"Gee, Lynn, he's like you and the other AFer's that take things out of context and use it to 'faux rebut' part of a post. No wonder you like him! At least he's honest about it -"

Yes, I find find him to be both honest and forthright in his posts, unlike you...Your criticism of his blog is another example of your unwillingness to listen to ALL sides of the discussion. You just keep posting those "unbiased" opinions of yours. Lynn492008-06-18 09:18:00Well, if you ever find out his name, let me know and we'll see how 'unbiased' he is.

Pip