![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 10 of 10. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Squiggles on October 25, 2006, at 19:09:56
It would be nice if there were
resources on this board, where a
medical falsehood posted could be caught
and reprimanded as uncivil -- much
like being impolite, or making
racist remarks.I suppose that's way too much editorial work
for the moderators though. I wonder
how the impolite remarks are caught;
is there a linguistic program that
picks them up? That would exlude
the possibility of picking up falsehoods
or alarming and frightening medical
propositions.Is it possible to do this, moderators?
Sorry, if i posted this on the wrong
file.Squiggles
Posted by dbc on October 26, 2006, at 7:15:52
In reply to Evidence and civility, posted by Squiggles on October 25, 2006, at 19:09:56
I cant think of a way to technically impliement such a thing. Besides with something as theoretical as psychiatry is it would be impossible to moderate.
Im not saying psychiatry its self is theoretical but rather anything beyond medicine A produces effect B is wrought with all sorts of contradictions.
Posted by Squiggles on October 26, 2006, at 10:31:44
In reply to Re: Evidence and civility, posted by dbc on October 26, 2006, at 7:15:52
> I cant think of a way to technically impliement such a thing. Besides with something as theoretical as psychiatry is it would be impossible to moderate.
>
> Im not saying psychiatry its self is theoretical but rather anything beyond medicine A produces effect B is wrought with all sorts of contradictions.
"A produces effect B" would be something
at least. However, I understand that it
takes a medical reader to check on inaccuracies
or misleading advice. So, i guess on this
board you have to take advice with a grain
of salt and with the understanding that you
are not necessarily receiving it from a dr.
but rather from laymen reporting their experience.
I think that's somewhere on Dr. Bob's FAQ; just
thought it would be nice if someone *could* monitor mistakes. It's not a perfect world
of course.Squiggles
Posted by Lindenblüte on October 26, 2006, at 10:32:09
In reply to Evidence and civility, posted by Squiggles on October 25, 2006, at 19:09:56
> It would be nice if there were
> resources on this board, where a
> medical falsehood posted could be caught
> and reprimanded as uncivil -- much
> like being impolite, or making
> racist remarks.what's a falsehood?
1) in the literature there are often conflicting studies. One study finds a positive result of X drug on depression. One study failes to find result of X drug.
2) what does it mean when X drug and placebo both cause reduction in symptoms? I'd rather take X drug than nothing (my doctor won't prescribe me placebo)
3) sometimes a "truth" is nothing more than a small study that has been over-interpreted.
4) sometimes there is a big complicated study, and a poster (or even another researcher in the field) takes a tiny snippet of their results or conclusions and then extrapolates. This happens when I read fashion magazine articles trying to give me medical advice- "drink red wine- you'll live 7 years longer!" whatever.
5) sometimes we know a treatment works, but there is rampant speculation about the mechanism involved. one paper publishes in vitro studies of mouse hippocampal cells and reports that drug X binds to these receptors. Another study presents PET scans of live humans doing spatial tasks and says that drug X impairs map reading, but not mental rotation- and then finds a relation between map reading impairment and drug X dosage, and wow- there is little evidence that drug X even binds to the hippocampus of humans.
I could go on and on...
My point, squiggles, is that science is incremental. Every study builds on what we know, but no study is really so perfect that it can tell us anything with certainty.
I am guilty of having a bad memory. I don't trust my own recollection of mechanisms, results, studies, for the most part. And I take other peoples' interpretations with a grain of skeptic salt.
I don't think this is uncivil though, it's just advancing science and understanding. increments. 1 step forward. .0003 steps back. margin of error. confidence interval. variability.
there is no "truth" in the biomedical sciences. There are only some theories that have strong empirical support (like evolution perhaps, or the central dogma of molecular biology DNA-> RNA-> protein) and other theories that have weaker or antithetic empirical support.
-Li
civility has nothing to do with it- unless you think that one poster is *deliberately* trying to POISON another one! well, that's why better talk to a doctor before following advice you get on pbabble.
Posted by Squiggles on October 26, 2006, at 11:05:14
In reply to Re: Evidence and civility » Squiggles, posted by Lindenblüte on October 26, 2006, at 10:32:09
> > It would be nice if there were
> > resources on this board, where a
> > medical falsehood posted could be caught
> > and reprimanded as uncivil -- much
> > like being impolite, or making
> > racist remarks.
>
> what's a falsehood?
>
> 1) in the literature there are often conflicting studies. One study finds a positive result of X drug on depression. One study failes to find result of X drug.
>
> 2) what does it mean when X drug and placebo both cause reduction in symptoms? I'd rather take X drug than nothing (my doctor won't prescribe me placebo)
>
> 3) sometimes a "truth" is nothing more than a small study that has been over-interpreted.
>
> 4) sometimes there is a big complicated study, and a poster (or even another researcher in the field) takes a tiny snippet of their results or conclusions and then extrapolates. This happens when I read fashion magazine articles trying to give me medical advice- "drink red wine- you'll live 7 years longer!" whatever.
>
> 5) sometimes we know a treatment works, but there is rampant speculation about the mechanism involved. one paper publishes in vitro studies of mouse hippocampal cells and reports that drug X binds to these receptors. Another study presents PET scans of live humans doing spatial tasks and says that drug X impairs map reading, but not mental rotation- and then finds a relation between map reading impairment and drug X dosage, and wow- there is little evidence that drug X even binds to the hippocampus of humans.
>
> I could go on and on...
>
> My point, squiggles, is that science is incremental. Every study builds on what we know, but no study is really so perfect that it can tell us anything with certainty.
>
> I am guilty of having a bad memory. I don't trust my own recollection of mechanisms, results, studies, for the most part. And I take other peoples' interpretations with a grain of skeptic salt.
>
> I don't think this is uncivil though, it's just advancing science and understanding. increments. 1 step forward. .0003 steps back. margin of error. confidence interval. variability.
>
> there is no "truth" in the biomedical sciences. There are only some theories that have strong empirical support (like evolution perhaps, or the central dogma of molecular biology DNA-> RNA-> protein) and other theories that have weaker or antithetic empirical support.
>
> -Li
>
>
> civility has nothing to do with it- unless you think that one poster is *deliberately* trying to POISON another one! well, that's why better talk to a doctor before following advice you get on pbabble.Yes, of course you're right mostly; maybe
i should get some of that sceptic salt.
GULP :-)Sorry, I guess i believe that all scientific
or medical statements must be true or false.
I'm just an old-fashioned romantic. I seem to
have upset you a bit -- sorry.Squiggles
Posted by Squiggles on October 26, 2006, at 13:32:30
In reply to Re: Evidence and civility » Squiggles, posted by Lindenblüte on October 26, 2006, at 10:32:09
> -Li
>
>
> civility has nothing to do with it- unless you think that one poster is *deliberately* trying to POISON another one! well, that's why better talk to a doctor before following advice you get on pbabble.
RE: above - neither evidence nor civility - my
dx is bipolar not paranoid schizophrenic.
At present i am trying to help someone who is
very ill and going through possibilities to
help the person for whom i care.Please don't write to me again. Your message
is very stressful.Thank you.
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2006, at 12:11:47
In reply to Re: Evidence and civility » dbc, posted by Squiggles on October 26, 2006, at 10:31:44
> i guess on this
> board you have to take advice with a grain
> of salt and with the understanding that you
> are not necessarily receiving it from a dr.
> but rather from laymen reporting their experience.
> I think that's somewhere on Dr. Bob's FAQ; just
> thought it would be nice if someone *could* monitor mistakes.The way I think of it, everyone helps monitor mistakes. It's true "peer review".
Bob
Posted by Squiggles on October 28, 2006, at 12:17:42
In reply to Re: monitoring mistakes, posted by Dr. Bob on October 28, 2006, at 12:11:47
> > thought it would be nice if someone *could* monitor mistakes.
>
> The way I think of it, everyone helps monitor mistakes. It's true "peer review".
>
> BobThere's a lot of feedback here -- that's why
this board is widely read; but the monitoring
is pure personal feedback -- it doesn't come
from psychopharmacologists necessarily; rather
from students, patients, and maybe lurkers.
I appreciate it of course, but it is not
entirely reliable, is what i'm saying. The
peers are not professionals but mostly patients.Squiggles
Posted by Jost on October 28, 2006, at 14:19:55
In reply to Re: monitoring mistakes » Dr. Bob, posted by Squiggles on October 28, 2006, at 12:17:42
It wouldn't be good to penalize people for having mistaken opinions, or biased but honest opinions, or just mistaken ideas. You understand, of course.
If there were posters who were experts, or monitors who intervened occasionally in the discussion to correct misinformation, or give other research or technical explanations, it would be great.
I find that if I take what I find here and research it, I come up with a lot of that myself (filtered through my non-expert conceptions though).
Were there instances in which you relied on something that proved not to be true?
Jost
Posted by Squiggles on October 28, 2006, at 14:59:36
In reply to Re: monitoring mistakes, posted by Jost on October 28, 2006, at 14:19:55
...
> If there were posters who were experts, or monitors who intervened occasionally in the discussion to correct misinformation, or give other research or technical explanations, it would be great.That's what i mean jost. And only in cases
where mistakes or misleading advice is
blatant. I realize that the problem here as
in the case of public mental health care is
a lack of staff and financial resources.
Maybe once in a while if something glaring
is posted, like MAOIs and imipramine are
a good combo... (i actually saw that somewhere
else on an alt. grou) and warned against... that
would be appreciated.Squiggles
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Medication | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.