Re: 15 tricks pharma companies use to get the right results


"Chris Malcolm" <cam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:3s6ahpFkudsdU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Robert <Robertsononlin@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > "Susan" <nevermind@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:3s48crFm95rsU3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> x-no-archive: yes
> >>
> >> Chris Malcolm wrote:
> >>
> >> > If you claim the people who express disagreements with consensus
> >> > reports must be misguided you misunderstand the nature of consensus
> >> > reports and sci.med newsgroups.
> >> >
> >>
> >> Some folks operate on a "need to believe" basis instead of an
> >> interest in scientific inquiry. Robert appears to me to be one of
those.
> >>
> >> Susan
>
> > What ever. I work on a need for policies and procedures that are
referenced.
> > My work product of negative and positive is definitive based on criteria
> > that are referenced.
>
> That's fine, but if you think this newsgroup is meant to backup the
> standard diagnostic guidelines, treatment procedures, consensus
> reports, etc., then you're seriously mistaken about the purpose of a
> sci. newsgroup, or indeed about any newsgroup.

This newgroup is to explain diagnostic work-ups used by conventional
medicine and the rationale. It is used in explaining the purpose of why
professionals do what they are doing.
That is the whole intent of this NG.

CHARTER sci.med.cardiology (adopted 1995)

The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish electronic media for
communication between health care providers, scientists and other
individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. Such
communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
information and knowledge, and offer solutions to problems.

The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are health
care providers, trainees, researchers, students or recipients with interest
in the field of cardiovascular problems.

RATIONALE

According the American College of Cardiology there are 22,000
members of the American College of Cardiology. A similar
number exists in Europe according to the European Society of
Cardiology. There are also a significant number of non-clinical
scientists involved in cardiovascular research at molecular and
epidemiological levels and other allied health care professionals
(nurses, physiotherapists, technicians, research assistants etc.)
involved with various aspects of cardiovascular health. Most of
the scientists and physicians are affiliated with Universities and
Medical Centers with Internet access. Currently there does not
exist any newsgroup which deals with cardiovascular medicine and science.


ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.med.cardiology


>
> > You can believe anything you want. You are not subject
> > to federal and state regulations and nor is this NG. There is accepted
> > criteria and the problem you have is you are always against that
criteria. I
> > am not surprised as you are not involved in healthcare and in seeing
> > patients.
>
> This newsgroup is *not* a doctor's consulting room. You seem to be
> suggesting that people who disagree with the published standards
> should keep their voices down in case they alarm or confuse any
> medical patients who might be listening.

If their is citations or references then they should be used and handed to
the doctor. The rest is fluff. People can voice all the opinions they want
to but without citations then it is worthless to the doctor. If you want to
watch House,MD and then post stuff from that here that's fine also.

>
> A sci.med newsgroup is not for the benefit of patients or healthcare
> professionals.

Read the charter again.

>
> > You can say anyone over a 90 glucose has diabetes or somebody has
> > lyme disease with minimal testing. You don't believe in false positives
at
> > all. Your positions are extreme.
>
> Nothing wrong with extreme views. In fact if they can be backed up by
> argument and research studies, as seeme to be the case with Susan's
> views, then they should be encouraged in a scientific discussion
> forum.

Again citations speak louder than words. Nobody needs to hear me or Sharon.
I would rather read citations and more importantly the doctor needs
citations.
To imply a doctor doesn't know how to treat diabetes or doesn't have a clue
to diabetes then I would see another doctor.
The rest is fluff.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 15 tricks pharma companies use to get the right results
    ... newsgroup, ... > communication between health care providers, scientists and other ... > individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • The Charter of this NG
    ... communication between health care providers, scientists and other ... individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. ... The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are health ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • The Charter of Sci.med.cardiology
    ... communication between health care providers, scientists and other ... individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. ... The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are health ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: OT - Mableton Doctor Makes a Stand for Free Speech
    ... > Please note last line "newsgroup which deals with cardiovascular ... > communication between health care providers, scientists and other ... > individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. ... > health care providers, trainees, researchers, students or recipients ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: A Riddle for Relativists.
    ... is a little different use of radar than ranging radar, ... them all into a newsgroup post. ... because you make mistakes like calculating t' from the Lorentz ... You scientists do not say much of anything to me because I am good at ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
Quantcast