tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post2851888764836242315..comments2024-03-05T00:59:35.390+08:00Comments on Angry Doctor: Science and how we know we are right 2angry dochttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comBlogger42125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-77610714130462369332008-04-07T19:04:00.000+08:002008-04-07T19:04:00.000+08:00hi angry doc,nice to see you are back! keep up th...hi angry doc,<BR/><BR/>nice to see you are back! keep up the good work dude!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-74416091263134877882008-04-05T20:55:00.000+08:002008-04-05T20:55:00.000+08:00Mr Wang fails to recognize that there is a fundame...Mr Wang fails to recognize that there is a fundamental difference between beauticians and doctors. Similarly those people who say patients must practise caveat emptor ('buyers beware') when they consult doctors who practise aesthetic medicine are off the mark. You should practise caveat emptor when you buy a face cream or visit a beautician. The doctor-patient relationship cannot be based on caveat emptor...it is based on trust. The doctor has the ethical and professional duty to ensure that he provides evidence-based advice and treatment to his patients. That sets us apart from beauticians, snake oil sellers and TCM practitioners. It is about trust, the fundamental tenet of the doctor-patient relationship. If we lose that, the medical profession loses its higher standing in society. And that's why I think the Ministry should ban doctors from practising so-called aesthetic medicine.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-89067911379572331762008-04-04T15:36:00.000+08:002008-04-04T15:36:00.000+08:00"Why aren't you writing to Khaw Boon Wan to shut d..."Why aren't you writing to Khaw Boon Wan to shut down beauty parlours, Phillip Wain, The Body Shop and Guardian Pharmacy, or at least to stop them from offering products / services which are not scientifically substantiated to be safe?"<BR/><BR/>Because the government is aware of the discrepancy in standards and the double-standards, and its position is to 'strike a balance' between consumer protection and business (I noted this on a previous entry on Health Products Act). The double-standard follows that of the US FDA, while the position of balancing business and consumer protection follows a US Court decision (if I recall correctly).<BR/><BR/>I continue to raise the issue on my blog, and while I am not sure it is having any effect, I am glad that Halimah Yacob seems to think that this double-standard needs to be addressed.<BR/><BR/>I use a pharmacy-only medicated shampoo, so yes, it is certified safe. :)<BR/><BR/>There are government regulations against false advertising for shampoo and cosmetics though, so if you look closely at shampoo and cosmetics advertisements you will find a disclaimer or clarification in small print in the corner of your screen. For instance, if the voice-over says a product "deeply penetrates the skin to nourish" you will see a disclaimer saying that "skin" here refers to the epidermis, and of course there is no scientific definition of "nourish". And in another one saying "90% of women experience improvement", you will find the small print clarifying that the sample size is only maybe 20 women. Likewise for those herbal balding remedies you find disclaimers that there is no evidence that they work, usually flashed at the bottom of the screen in small print in the final second of the ad. How many people actually notice these caveats?<BR/><BR/>There are also certain diseases and conditions which health products cannot claim to treat or cure - your ginseng for erectile dysfunction is one example. Of course the people who sell these products get around the problem by avoiding the use of the term "erectile dysfunction", and substituting words which hint at increasing sexual prowess. There are also numerous products which claim to 'detox' the body, without specifying what toxins exactly they are referring too and how they are removed from the body.<BR/><BR/>The laws are there, but how robust or effective they are is another thing.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-56465131056442814962008-04-04T14:57:00.000+08:002008-04-04T14:57:00.000+08:00Good, Angry Doctor. Now at least there is consiste...Good, Angry Doctor. Now at least there is consistency in your position. I appreciate that.<BR/><BR/>Why aren't you writing to Khaw Boon Wan to shut down beauty parlours, Phillip Wain, The Body Shop and Guardian Pharmacy, or at least to stop them from offering products / services which are not scientifically substantiated to be safe?<BR/><BR/>Because - seriously speaking, and no sarcasm intended - as a medical professional, if you HONESTLY feel that all these products and services really pose such a (potential or actual) hazard, SHOULDN'T you be VERY concerned? Why aren't you calling for government regulation on shampoos, for instance? They are aesthetic products; many will make claims to make your hair shiny, healthy and beautiful - I'm sure we must agree that most of these claims are not, in practice, scientifically substantiated.<BR/><BR/>What brand of shampoo do you personall use, AD? Did you check to see if it has been scientifically substantiated to be harmless to users? Aren't you afraid that it might cause your health severe damage?Gilbert Koh aka Mr Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027678080233274309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-77739964980876517792008-04-04T13:47:00.000+08:002008-04-04T13:47:00.000+08:00"To address your claim that you can determine whet..."<B>To address your claim that you can determine whether a treatment works with a single case, all I need to do is to show any example where a single case does not give you an accurate overall picture of the treatment, be it efficacy or safety.</B><BR/><BR/>Otherwise also known as the "Hasty Generalization" Fallacy.<BR/><BR/>Am I the only one who notice a pattern here? Those people who advocate pseudoscience/faith-based beliefs and pooh pooh the scientific method usually confirm their intellectual sloppiness by using bad argument with flawed reasoning. <BR/><BR/>Misguided? Nah. More like dopey or loopy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-49371911865482354772008-04-04T13:05:00.000+08:002008-04-04T13:05:00.000+08:00"By the way, if one of those aesthetic treatments ..."By the way, if one of those aesthetic treatments is reported by patients to cause adverse reactions, I would want the ministry to intervene immediately. I would not expect the ministry to wait for a few years while the treatment is being scientifically researched in clinical trials etc to verify the allegations of harmful effects. Sorry for my "unscientific" and "intellectually sloppy" stand on this."<BR/><BR/>Application of science doesn't mean that we take years to act on a single report of adverse reaction (strawman again, Mr Wang) - it just means that we "individually reviewed with particular attention to the serious adverse reactions reports" instead of concluding immediately that an adverse reaction is due directly and/or only to the treatment implicated.<BR/><BR/>You can find out more about the process from the Health Sciences Authority site:<BR/><BR/>http://www.hsa.gov.sg/publish/hsaportal/en/health_products_regulation/safety_information/report_adverse_reaction.html<BR/><BR/>This process, along with the collection and analysis of data on reported ADR ensures that we do unnecessarily pull off drugs which are proven to be useful based on mis-attributed adverse effects, or create unneccesary panic, as is with the case of the MMR scare.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-91878492849199557722008-04-04T12:48:00.000+08:002008-04-04T12:48:00.000+08:00"But it has been clear all along that we are talki..."But it has been clear all along that we are talking about treatments not scientifically substantiated for efficacy, and not known to be harmful...<BR/><BR/>So I do not know why you suddenly introduce "safety" into the present discussion."<BR/><BR/>I brought up the point to show that the law holds doctors and beauticians to different standards, and as you point out regards safety and not efficacy.<BR/><BR/>To clarify: I think both should be held to the same standards regarding efficacy and safety.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-67554148632566496652008-04-04T12:37:00.000+08:002008-04-04T12:37:00.000+08:00Anon 10:25 says:"Your examples are not reflective ...Anon 10:25 says:<BR/><BR/><B>"Your examples are not reflective of the realities."</B><BR/><BR/>Are you trying to say that I'm making all this stuff up? Don't ask me, ask NIH (USA).<BR/><BR/>*shrugs*<BR/><BR/><B>"Ginseng is used very widely by many people all over the world. You are talking about Stevens-Johnson syndrome as a way to say that Ginseng has to be classified as poison perhaps?"</B><BR/><BR/>But ONE patient developed Stevens-Johnson syndrome after taking ginseng! <BR/><BR/>Recall that you said:<BR/><BR/><B>"However we live in the NOW where we sometimes cannot wait for science to finally find that answer. In a way by trying something, we will know what the answer is for our individual selves. Of course one anecdotal report on ONE patient does not equate to FACT OF PROOF by science's standards.<BR/><BR/>But to that patient....IT WORKS."</B><BR/><BR/>Based on your idea, it should be considered a poison because to that ONE patient....it is dangerous. <BR/><BR/>I'm just taking your approach to its logical conclusion.<BR/><BR/><B>"Stevens-Johnson Syndrome while being extremely dangerous can be caused by a variety of common drugs. Eg NSAIDs being a very common one. Bactrim is another that comes to mind.<BR/><BR/>Are these drugs still widely used for analgesia and antibacterial treatment? Yes they are. Will every patient get SJS? Unlikely. Will some get it? Yes they will. Do we know who will get it? No we don't. Why scare people about ginseng resulting in SJS when you can give so many more examples of common drugs that cause it too?"</B><BR/><BR/>Observe that the safety data that you mention here was discovered by scientific methods. <BR/><BR/>Also observe that you are supporting your stand by using evidence, rather than opinions.<BR/><BR/>So although you assert that...<BR/><BR/><B>"There might be better new ways to achieve "proof" of how some things work."</B><BR/><BR/>...you certainly didn't use the "better new ways" in your discussion.<BR/><BR/>And we still don't know what they are.<BR/><BR/><B>"As for the point about hypoglycemia from ginseng use......you may have a point. But it would be interesting to see the actual incidence of such events in populations."</B><BR/><BR/>Requires science.<BR/><BR/><B>"Peanuts can cause severe allergies resulting in death in quite a large number of people especially caucasians who give their little children peanut butter from a young age."</B><BR/><BR/>Revealed by science.<BR/><BR/><B>"There is a supplement called Pharmaton which is panax ginseng extracts. If indeed ginseng is so dangerous I am sure HSA should have pulled this product off the shelves of health food stores. And I do trust that HSA does their job in monitoring reports of adverse reactions from doctors.<BR/><BR/>If indeed the incidence of ginseng linked SJS is high enough then HSA would do their job."</B><BR/><BR/>Yup, you need science for that too.<BR/><BR/><B>"You say unscrupulous people use exaggerated claims to sell products and services."</B><BR/><BR/>No I didn't. You can search the entire comments section.<BR/><BR/><B>"Well you seem to be using similar exaggerated scare tactics also what!"</B><BR/><BR/>To address your claim that you can determine whether a treatment works with a single case, all I need to do is to show any example where a single case does not give you an accurate overall picture of the treatment, be it efficacy or safety.<BR/><BR/>You claim that I am exaggerating because you want to think (or want others to think ) that I am suggesting that ginseng is harmful for most people.<BR/><BR/>Actually, my claim is simply that ginseng has side effects for some people.The Key Questionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05426898630563791849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-44909352961803368562008-04-04T12:06:00.000+08:002008-04-04T12:06:00.000+08:00A.D:But it has been clear all along that we are ta...A.D:<BR/><BR/>But it has been clear all along that we are talking about treatments not scientifically substantiated for efficacy, and not known to be harmful. Khaw has already stated that if the treatment is known to be harmful, the ministry WILL intervene. You quoted khaw on your own blog, remember? <BR/><BR/>So I do not know why you suddenly introduce "safety" into the present discussion.<BR/><BR/>If "safety" is your concern, then surely beauticians must be held to the same standards as doctors, for the same kind of treatment.(Or if you prefer, doctors must be held to the same standards as beauticians).<BR/><BR/>By the way, if one of those aesthetic treatments is reported by patients to cause adverse reactions, I would want the ministry to intervene immediately. I would not expect the ministry to wait for a few years while the treatment is being scientifically researched in clinical trials etc to verify the allegations of harmful effects. Sorry for my "unscientific" and "intellectually sloppy" stand on this.Gilbert Koh aka Mr Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027678080233274309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-39255132078115714752008-04-04T10:54:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:54:00.000+08:00Mr. Wang said."Next example - suppose a beautician...Mr. Wang said.<BR/><BR/><B>"Next example - suppose a beautician or doctor offers ...<BR/><BR/>No doubt you will say ... <BR/><BR/>But suppose the following week, the straits times then reports ... etc.<BR/><BR/>Will you say ... <BR/><BR/>I would say that you are stupid. Scientific, but stupid."</B><BR/><BR/>Hi Mr Wang,<BR/><BR/>Doncha just love the way you set up your own straw-men and then proceed to beat them up?<BR/><BR/>Poor Angrydoc, he keeps having to take <I>your</I> words out from his mouth.<BR/><BR/>PZAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-33779790224059704422008-04-04T10:52:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:52:00.000+08:00"But suppose the following week, the straits times..."But suppose the following week, the straits times then reports that one customer underwent the same treatment, and immediately developed severe rashes, itches etc.<BR/><BR/>Will you say that these allegations of harm are also unscientific and unreliable? And that we need clinical trials; proper controls; big sample size; published papers etc, before we can scientifically and reliably conclude that the treatment is harmful? "<BR/><BR/>It depends on the specific circumstances, of course, but if you are trying to say that drugs are pulled off the market based on one single case of adverse reaction then no, that's not how it works.<BR/><BR/>Monitoring adverse drug reaction is a process of collecting data and analysing them.<BR/><BR/>Drugs with known adverse reaction are not automatically pulled off the market, but can still be used depending on the risk-benefit ratio. And to know risk benefit ratio requires that we have data on the risks and benefits.<BR/><BR/>It's still science, and I'm not sure it's stupid.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-67284093309449084272008-04-04T10:42:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:42:00.000+08:00"On the difference between beauticians and doctors..."On the difference between beauticians and doctors, the law specifies which modalities of treatment beauticians are limited to, and these are held to the standard of 'OK unless harm done', while those used by doctors are held to 'OK only if proven safe'. That's the law."<BR/><BR/>I'm sorry if you got the impression that I said the law prohibits doctors from providing unsubstantiated treatment, but what I said about the law related to the issue of safety, not efficacy.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-38922312666390144382008-04-04T10:04:00.000+08:002008-04-04T10:04:00.000+08:00I just perused both Acts. I don't see where it say...I just perused both Acts. <BR/><BR/>I don't see where it says that doctors cannot offer treatments the efficacy of which is not scientifically substantiated, and which are not known to be harmful.<BR/><BR/>Seriously, if you believe otherwise and you think that these doctors have committed criminal offences, do be a good citizen and go make a police report.Gilbert Koh aka Mr Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027678080233274309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-82928094033640100942008-04-04T09:55:00.000+08:002008-04-04T09:55:00.000+08:00"Presumably you would not object to this (as I do ..."Presumably you would not object to this (as I do not hear you objecting against beauticians' businesses generally).<BR/><BR/>So you see - your real objection is not to the treatment. Your real objection is based on your own ideas on what doctors should or should not do.<BR/><BR/>So please stop deluding yrself that your views are just based on "scientific" considerations."<BR/><BR/>Well, I haven't blogged about ear-candling yet, but that doesn't mean I think it is OK.<BR/><BR/>And I have blogged about fengshui and exorcism, which are not about doctors' bahaviour, so I'm not all about what doctors should or should not do either.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-12973144173837360042008-04-04T09:53:00.000+08:002008-04-04T09:53:00.000+08:00Next example - suppose a beautician or doctor offe...Next example - suppose a beautician or doctor offers a scientifically unsubstantiated beauty treatment not known to be harmful.<BR/><BR/>According to a Straits Times article, 40 customers surveyed said that they are extremely pleased and happy. They report no complications and furthermore say that the results are excellent.<BR/><BR/>No doubt you will say that these claims of efficacy are very unscientific and unreliable. To establish the efficacy, we need clinical trials; controlled studies; large sample size; published papers etc, before we conclude that the treatment works.<BR/><BR/>But suppose the following week, the straits times then reports that one customer underwent the same treatment, and immediately developed severe rashes, itches etc.<BR/><BR/>Will you say that these allegations of harm are also unscientific and unreliable? And that we need clinical trials; proper controls; big sample size; published papers etc, before we can scientifically and reliably conclude that the treatment is harmful? <BR/><BR/>I would say that you are stupid. Scientific, but stupid.Gilbert Koh aka Mr Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027678080233274309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-77456692570608559912008-04-04T09:37:00.000+08:002008-04-04T09:37:00.000+08:00Gee, Mr Wang, why are you putting the burden of pr...Gee, Mr Wang, why are you putting the burden of proof on me?<BR/><BR/>Well the laws are found in the Medicines Act and the Private Hospital and Clinic Act.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-32069028160391296442008-04-04T09:36:00.000+08:002008-04-04T09:36:00.000+08:00Thought I shall offer you another simple way to lo...Thought I shall offer you another simple way to look at it.<BR/><BR/>Suppose Dr Tan runs a full-time clinic, and also offers scientifically unsubstantiated aesthetic treatments not known to be harmful. This you object to.<BR/><BR/>Now, suppose Dr Tan decides to stop offering those treatments (no doubt this pleases you), and also decides to run his clinic only part-time. <BR/><BR/>On other days, he runs another business with his wife at another location, called "Tan's Beauty Parlour". Besides facials and massage services and training in grooming, he also offers the same scientifically unsubstantiated aesthetic treatments that he used to offer at his clinic.<BR/><BR/>Presumably you would not object to this (as I do not hear you objecting against beauticians' businesses generally).<BR/><BR/>So you see - your real objection is not to the treatment. Your real objection is based on your own ideas on what doctors should or should not do.<BR/><BR/>So please stop deluding yrself that your views are just based on "scientific" considerations.Gilbert Koh aka Mr Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027678080233274309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-86609496289730685592008-04-04T08:48:00.000+08:002008-04-04T08:48:00.000+08:00"On the difference between beauticians and doctors...<B>"On the difference between beauticians and doctors, the law specifies which modalities of treatment beauticians are limited to, and these are held to the standard of 'OK unless harm done', while those used by doctors are held to 'OK only if proven safe'. That's the law."</B><BR/><BR/>Which law, please? I am not aware. If this is already a law, then I shall alert the Attorney-General's Chambers to immediately prosecute all those doctors which we have been discussing.<BR/><BR/>No need for Khaw to pass any new regulations. After all, according to you, the laws already exist.Gilbert Koh aka Mr Wanghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01027678080233274309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-62284260665263442712008-04-03T22:35:00.000+08:002008-04-03T22:35:00.000+08:00And you still haven't answered our question on wha...And you still haven't answered our question on what your "better new ways to achieve "proof" of how some things work" are.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-74017308500881039852008-04-03T22:25:00.000+08:002008-04-03T22:25:00.000+08:00Hi Mr Lim,Your examples are not reflective of the ...Hi Mr Lim,<BR/><BR/>Your examples are not reflective of the realities.<BR/><BR/>Ginseng is used very widely by many people all over the world. You are talking about Stevens-Johnson syndrome as a way to say that Ginseng has to be classified as poison perhaps?<BR/><BR/>Stevens-Johnson Syndrome while being extremely dangerous can be caused by a variety of common drugs. Eg NSAIDs being a very common one. Bactrim is another that comes to mind.<BR/><BR/>Are these drugs still widely used for analgesia and antibacterial treatment? Yes they are. Will every patient get SJS? Unlikely. Will some get it? Yes they will. Do we know who will get it? No we don't. Why scare people about ginseng resulting in SJS when you can give so many more examples of common drugs that cause it too?<BR/><BR/>As for the point about hypoglycemia from ginseng use......you may have a point. But it would be interesting to see the actual incidence of such events in populations.<BR/><BR/>Peanuts can cause severe allergies resulting in death in quite a large number of people especially caucasians who give their little children peanut butter from a young age.<BR/><BR/>Should peanut butter and peanuts be prescription only?<BR/><BR/>We have to have some balance here lah.<BR/><BR/>You are being too extreme.<BR/><BR/>There is a supplement called Pharmaton which is panax ginseng extracts. If indeed ginseng is so dangerous I am sure HSA should have pulled this product off the shelves of health food stores. And I do trust that HSA does their job in monitoring reports of adverse reactions from doctors.<BR/><BR/>If indeed the incidence of ginseng linked SJS is high enough then HSA would do their job.<BR/><BR/>You say unscrupulous people use exaggerated claims to sell products and services. Well you seem to be using similar exaggerated scare tactics also what!<BR/><BR/>Don't lah.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-39743481378330082142008-04-03T19:27:00.000+08:002008-04-03T19:27:00.000+08:00Anon 6:39 says:"Why must bet life so serious? Eg M...Anon 6:39 says:<BR/><BR/><B>"Why must bet life so serious? Eg Mr Wang's comment about taking ginseng for good health....BET LIFE ar?<BR/><BR/>Don't exaggerate and make this discussion something else it isn't please."</B><BR/><BR/>Hmm... am I exaggerating?<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you are claiming that ginseng has no side effects.<BR/><BR/>http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/druginfo/natural/patient-ginseng.html<BR/><BR/>Note that:<BR/><BR/><I>Based on human research, ginseng may lower blood sugar levels. This effect may be greater in patients with diabetes than in non-diabetic individuals. Caution is advised in patients with diabetes or hypoglycemia, and in those taking drugs, herbs, or supplements that affect blood sugar. Serum glucose levels may need to be monitored by a healthcare provider, and medication adjustments may be necessary.</I><BR/><BR/>In addition:<BR/><BR/><I>A severe life-threatening rash known as Stevens-Johnson syndrome occurred in one patient and may have been due to contaminants in a ginseng product. A case report describes liver damage (cholestatic hepatitis) after taking a combination product containing ginseng. High doses of ginseng have been associated with rare cases of temporary inflammation of blood vessels in the brain (cerebral arteritis), abnormal dilation of the pupils of the eye, confusion, or depression.</I><BR/> <BR/>Please explain to us how a single anecdote can produce the safety data on this patient information page.<BR/><BR/>Maybe then it would be clearer how a single anecdote can determine the effectiveness of any treatment.The Key Questionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05426898630563791849noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-20916604962618181122008-04-03T19:11:00.000+08:002008-04-03T19:11:00.000+08:00"...the FACT is we DO put some people on treatment..."...the FACT is we DO put some people on treatment that is not proven on a regular basis.<BR/><BR/>It's called trials."<BR/><BR/>Yes, we do put people on trials, and as you noted trials undergo several stages during which the plausibility of the treatment tested, the safety profile tested, and data collected for statistical analysis so meaningful information can be collected. Trials have been stopped mid-way when it is found that a form of treatment is not efficacious or indeed safe. This kind of rigour is not applied to many forms of unproven therapy before they are allowed to be sold to the public, so conducting trial is not the same thing as endorsing or selling unproven therapy.<BR/><BR/>I cannot comment on economic theories intelligently since I am not familiar with them, but books on alternative medicine is perhaps something I should look into someday. Suffice to say now that it is possible for many authors to make claims without providing evidence because of the 'First Amendment Rights' - google "Kevin Trudeau" for an illustration of this phenomenon.<BR/><BR/>"I know your motives are noble, but I think there is an extent to which one can go in controlling these things."<BR/><BR/>I'm glad you appreciate what Leng Hiong and I are trying to do here, but I don't share your pessimism on what can be done. Legislation is one way (Mdm Halimah Jacob just made a comment proposing beauticians be regulated, so progress can be made), but what is more important to me is that we all get into the habit of examining claims critically and requiring evidence for them. We may not be able to legislate against all forms of unproven therapy or eliminate gullibilty, but we can try to make the public more discerning.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-62965049910998257892008-04-03T18:54:00.000+08:002008-04-03T18:54:00.000+08:00"So why make it sound like the "science" system is..."So why make it sound like the "science" system is so superior?"<BR/><BR/>Because it works.<BR/><BR/>And you still haven't answered our question on what your "better new ways to achieve "proof" of how some things work" are.angry dochttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03132410467147982699noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-4655882722393149472008-04-03T18:49:00.000+08:002008-04-03T18:49:00.000+08:00Just a point here about science.While we talk abou...Just a point here about science.<BR/><BR/>While we talk about how we must have proof before starting people on treatment that is not proven etc...the FACT is we DO put some people on treatment that is not proven on a regular basis.<BR/><BR/>It's called trials. While there are various stages for clinical trials, when they do get to testing on humans it is still dangerous. But some people still volunteer for it.<BR/><BR/>Some pay with their lives even!<BR/><BR/>Yet this is still done. Of course there is no other way.<BR/><BR/>The point I am trying to make is that, there are different levels of "trials". And again it is the individual who makes that choice out of free will to try or trial that treatment or procedure for whatever reasons they may have. Be it furthering science, or having a last hope, or simply being curious, it is free will.<BR/><BR/>Should we protect people from dangerous treatments that can harm them? Yes we should. Should we protect people from products and services that do not work and are a total waste of money? Well ideally we should. But the task is enormous and simply not economical.<BR/><BR/>I'll give you an example from the financial world. Elliot Wave theory. Is this proven by science? Nope. Do traders use it? Some do.<BR/><BR/>Technical analysis. Proven by science? Still debatable. Used by traders? Yes.<BR/><BR/>So should the authorities stop the sale of these technical analysis books and Elliot wave theory books that spread "unproven" techniques for trading which might cause individuals to lose their entire life savings? <BR/><BR/>Well going by your arguments, it seems the authorities should ban them.<BR/><BR/>Similarly for all those books in the bookstores on alternative medicine and the like.<BR/><BR/>I know your motives are noble, but I think there is an extent to which one can go in controlling these things. <BR/><BR/>I am all for banning dangerous medical related treatments. And I think FDA does this job. As for useless treatments...well think of Vytorin and how many people have WASTED their money on it.<BR/><BR/>It's never perfect anyway. So why make it sound like the "science" system is so superior?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-15575652.post-38622573821392459102008-04-03T18:39:00.000+08:002008-04-03T18:39:00.000+08:00"Hmm... interesting.I guess the question for you i..."Hmm... interesting.<BR/><BR/>I guess the question for you is: would you be willing to bet your life on that one anecdote?<BR/><BR/>If not, how would you justify betting the life of anyone else?"<BR/><BR/>I would if I was already doomed to dying (eg Stage IV cancer) and money was not a concern for me. What's there to lose?<BR/><BR/>You are referring to LIFE SAVING/LIFE THREATENING procedures.<BR/><BR/>I wasn't talking about that in my previous comment.<BR/><BR/>Why must bet life so serious? Eg Mr Wang's comment about taking ginseng for good health....BET LIFE ar?<BR/><BR/>Don't exaggerate and make this discussion something else it isn't please.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com