Your 8 years of medical training were absolutely not wasted. You learned all you needed to know about medicine. Medicine and health aren't related. If the medical profession was so smart, they wouldn't have told me to just institutional my son and have more children because he had health issues. Thank God I'm smarter than the doctors that gave me that advice because all by myself I healed my son. He's 37 and a totally productive and delightful and brilliant and enterprising father and valued employee. I gave him a much better life than his doctors mapped out for him. Mine isn't an isolated case. It would take volumes to record testimonials from people that fired their doctor and lived to tell about. Your profession is pathetic. I place mainstream doctors in the same category and politicians and pedophiles, but not necessarily in that order.

Empire of Illusions: the end of literacy and the rise of spectacle. Read it.

I do not demean the emotional resonance of their own life experiences for these acrtesses, but nor do I confuse personal narrative for expert opinion generalizable to the population at large. I don't consider this a fine line, though many others apparently do - and their leader's initials are Larry King.

Rated.

ctbiz:

"Medicine and health aren't related."

Then why has lifespan increased from 48 years to 77 in just the past 100 years? Antibiotics, vaccinations, transfusions, surgery, chemotherapy, etc. etc. etc. have dramatically improved the health of those who have access to it.

Sandra Stephens:

"Empire of Illusions: the end of literacy and the rise of spectacle."

Thanks, I'll check it out.

While I do not discount the great accomplishments of modern medicine, specifically regarding vaccines, the development of antibiotics, and traumatic injury treatment; the great strides in life expectancy that we saw in the last century are more the result of one single thing that was vastly improved in the 20th century.

SANITATION.

Clean water, working sewage systems, and regular garbage collection have done more to improve and prolong the lives of mankind and reduce the levels of infant mortality than anything else.

While I think the starlets you name here are unworthy of the credence that many so eagerly bestow them with, not all of what they have to say is without merit, and it is a free country, they can say what they like. Most Americans with a serious dog in the hunt are not so foolish that they would take anything these three have said about science and health issues to heart without a serious investigation on their own part.

The cancer stats are disturbing though. Early detection doesn't seem to make a real dent in the overall survival rates of cancer victims. It does give one pause about the business nature of cancer treatments. I know my father ran up a bill of nearly 200 k for radiation/doc bills during the last year of his life. Maybe it bought him six months, maybe not. Maybe he would have lived longer and enjoyed eating and not wasted away to a skeleton if he hadn't had all the radiation and the requisite elimination of taste buds. Who's to say. I know the cancer center collected their ducats.

I think it was about the time that most citizens of the USA figured out that the AMA is owned and operated by big pharma corporations. Or maybe when people noticed that instead of a "family doctor" they were lucky to get four minutes with a physician at a "medical corporation".

You undermine the foundation, the structure collapses. I'm not an engineer, but I'm pretty sure that's how it works.


.

The more expertise a person has in modern society, the more suspect they are. Call it anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism or just plain stupidity, but it's a fact of life. That's why committees and boards on all levels of government and private industry are loaded with people who know nothing, and proclaim it proudly. If you have knowledge, then YOU are the problem, not the solution, especially if your knowledge doesn't coincide with the dumbed-d0wn political impetus of the moment.

I couldn't help but laugh at the Three's Company joke.

Rated.

Isnt it just the media, hypen it up, if you belive every thing on tv wouldnt we all be sick. Look at the swine flu craze, i am sure its bad but the last that took off like at was he bird flu, and it really worrried me about my birds and if they were going to be okay. But with so much internationla travel who know what will creep up out of the rain forest, it just might be a cure for cancer!

Frankly, Dr. Amy, I think you are just jealous.

1. Even though a couple of them are nearing the end of their shelf life, they have better cleavage than you, Dr. Amy.
2. They have better agents.
3. They can sell themselves. How did they get to be B listers? Or hang on to their celebrity status?
4. They are convincing, and people want to listen to them. They are either talk show hosts or appear on talk shows a lot.

Sorry to be so harsh. You raise a great question. How could someone so unqualified possibly be considered worthy of public attention regarding medical advice? I just don't buy the notion that the answer is simply that the American public are idiots. I suggest you read Malcolm Gladwell's, 'Wisdom of Crowds.'

Also check the career of Dr. Sanjay Gupta. He almost made the leap from television to Surgeon General.

Someone had to say it.

Best regards, Nick

Ablonde:

"Clean water, working sewage systems, and regular garbage collection have done more to improve and prolong the lives of mankind and reduce the levels of infant mortality than anything else."

There are a number of serious problems with your theory.

1. Sanitation was, in large part, an achievement of the 19th Century, not the 20th. Yet the bulk of the increase in life expectancy occurred from 1900-2000

2. The sanitation achievements are MEDICAL achievements. They rest on the germ theory of disease, which is a medical theory.

"It does give one pause about the business nature of cancer treatments. "

Ahh, yes, a conspiracy theory. Americans love conspiracy theories, the more ludicrous the better.

"I think it was about the time that most citizens of the USA figured out that the AMA is owned and operated by big pharma corporations."

But of course the AMA has never had less power in it's entire history than today. Fewer than 1/3 of doctors belong.

And let's suppose for a moment that Big Pharma "owns" medicine. That hardly justifies getting your medical advice from a bunch of B movie starlets who don't even have a college education, does it?

But, hey, facts are irrelevant. Gotta love those conspiracy theories. They don't even have to make sense.

emma peel:

"The more expertise a person has in modern society, the more suspect they are. Call it anti-intellectualism, anti-elitism or just plain stupidity, but it's a fact of life. That's why committees and boards on all levels of government and private industry are loaded with people who know nothing, and proclaim it proudly. If you have knowledge, then YOU are the problem, not the solution, especially if your knowledge doesn't coincide with the dumbed-d0wn political impetus of the moment."

So sad, but so true.

"I just don't buy the notion that the answer is simply that the American public are idiots."

Gotta tell ya, Nick, that taking medical evidence from Jenny McCarthy or Suzanne Summers is prima facie evidence of being an idiot. There's really no way around that.

The awe in which we hold celebrities, the love of conspiracy theories, the ugly strain of anti-intellectualism, they all play a part, Fundamentally, though, it's about being uneducated and unable to understand science or statistics.

As Orac so charmingly put it, Suzanne Somers is spewing "napalm grade stupidity" and people actually believe her. That says more about them than it says about her.

I agree with Emma Peel. I was having a discussion the other day about vaccines with someone who was convinced that the immune system is damaged by them. When I tried to explain how the immune system works I was asked "how would you know?" So I gave my credentials...and then it was "oh, well, you're part of the problem!" They don't want to listen to anyone unless that person knows something, but if they know something then they're not worth listening to...it's really quite a difficult line of reasoning to fathom if you're a person with any sense at all.

Alicia PhD:

"So I gave my credentials...and then it was "oh, well, you're part of the problem!"

Only if the "problem" is a dreadful sense of inferiority over their own lack of education.

"Fundamentally, though, it's about being uneducated and unable to understand science or statistics."

I suppose, but I think they have a story to tell, and tell it convincingly. When a highly educated physician has a story to tell, and a personal story at that, they refer to it by the term autoethnography, no?

How exactly is autoethnography any more scientific than the singular experiences of B list celebs?

In fact, instead of a whining tale of woe from an overeducated woman with zero common sense (close to starving her baby to death??? because of ideology????), you get stories delivered by genuine B or C or D listers. Instead of a gated journal, its on television. I really wonder why ANYONE would subscribe to Feminism & Psychology Online.

Can anyone really get their mind around this?

"Anthropologist Deborah Reed-Danahay, for example, stresses that autoethnography is a postmodernist construct:
The concept of autoethnography…synthesizes both a postmodern ethnography, in which the realist conventions and objective observer position of standard ethnography have been called into question, and a postmodern autobiography, in which the notion of the coherent, individual self has been similarly called into question. The term has a double sense - referring either to the ethnography of one's own group or to autobiographical writing that has ethnographic interest. Thus, either a self (auto) ethnography or an autobiographical (auto) ethnography can be signaled by "autoethnography.""

And what are these, as you refer to them, "Starlets" if not postmodern constructs?

I suppose it takes a strong stomach to deal with either -- postmodernist drivel or "B" listers. I don't think I would like to make the value judgment that an American Public is ignorant for watching television [as awful as it can be] when a portion of American intelligentsia is still paying attention to gender studies and post modernist drivel.

So, to answer the question that inquiring minds want to know -- it is the publics version of autoethnography.

Maybe because 'experts' with 'credentials' are a little, uh, morally superior and too proud of their degrees, and many people would rather listen to old wives' tales of stories about people who've actually been in the trenches with the health conditions that frighten us? Perhaps America feels more comfortable letting these women speak because in some way, we feel like we know them (from having seen them on TV) better than we know some stranger in a clinic somewhere who smells too much like rubber gloves? Are you naive enough to think these girls came up with the theories they're selling on their own? I'd bet there are huge teams of physicians and/or actual credentialed health professionals consulting them and providing information, and using these women as spokesmodels, not positioning them as definitive experts.

Even so, isn't everyone (even a B-movie starlet) entitled to share his or her life experiences with people? Then, the audience is ultimately left to be able to choose for itself what to believe and what, if anything to act upon. That's what we humans do, gather information, make decisions... Doctors who assert that you should just swallow every word of 'medical advice' they give, no questions asked, because 'they're doctors and they went to school for a really long time, dammit' are not the kinds of doctors I want anywhere near me or my family.

Is it really so hard to believe that someone who doesn't have a medical degree and years of residency and stuff doesn't know jack? If so, then, I'm so glad you lower yourself to talk to us worms.

Nick Carraway:

"it is the publics version of autoethnography."

Autoethnography makes no empirical claims. Ricki Lake, Jenny McCarthy and Suzanne Somers do.

Treating their stories as autoethnography tells us something about the way that they (and others like them) experience the world. It tells us nothing about obstetrics, immunology or oncology.

How can you possibly justify getting medical advice from a bunch of B movie starlets who never finished college?

"The sanitation achievements are MEDICAL achievements. They rest on the germ theory of disease, which is a medical theory."

They are technological achievements, based on the germ theory of disease, which is a scientific -- not a MEDICAL theory.

If I were a physician, I would like to freely interchange that label with that of a scientist at will. Some physicians are, in fact, scientists with full credentials (Ph.Ds) and others pass their exams and boards and simply practice their trade.

The fact that some physicians are resistant to statistical quality control and rigorous outcomes based practice is a good reason to both make and be aware of this distinction.

RavingBits:

"Maybe because 'experts' with 'credentials' are a little, uh, morally superior and too proud of their degrees"

Oh, how the expert (real or faux) makes you feel about yourself is more important than whether the information is true? Some people prefer to get their medical information from college dropouts so they don't have to feel bad that they know nothing about science and statistics? That explains a lot.

Nick Carraway:

"They are technological achievements"

Putting the garbage in a dump as opposed to on the street is a technological achievement? I don't think so.

"Treating their stories as autoethnography tells us something about the way that they (and others like them) experience the world. It tells us nothing about obstetrics, immunology or oncology.

How can you possibly justify getting medical advice from a bunch of B movie starlets who never finished college?"

I have never been a big fan of "argument from authority" and seem to be running into it here. Along with a healthy dose of classism.

I also fail to see the epistemological distinction between the singular experiences of neurotic doctors (not you -- the breastfeeder) and ditzy starlets. It's just a story, no?

At least the starlets don't try to jazz it up by referring to it as 'autoethnography.' They are simply a televised version of your next door neighbor, telling their version of events. I doubt if many people take it any more seriously.

However, I am seriously afraid that people do take autoethnography way too seriously.

"Putting the garbage in a dump as opposed to on the street is a technological achievement? I don't think so."

I suppose it is a MEDICAL achievement.

However the infrastructure of modern sanitation is an impressive engineering (and ipso facto technological) achievement, if you take the time to pay attention.

NO MAS

You win Amy!!!!!!!

Nick Carraway:

"I have never been a big fan of "argument from authority" and seem to be running into it here."

This is not "argument from authority." It is very simple. Without formal training in medicine, you are not qualified to give medical advice.

I will grant you that the appeal of taking medical advice from B movie starlets who never graduated from college does provide some people with a shiver of delight at the idea of defying authority. However, defying authority is a bizarre way to make decisions about empirical claims.

You are seriously ducking the central question I raised.

Namely, how does one justify using an autoethnographic account one day and then turn around and ridicule the accounts of professional entertainers.

Consider this a purely rhetorical question, because, there is no bona fide distinction. And bobbing and weaving won't do it.

"Namely, how does one justify using an autoethnographic account one day and then turn around and ridicule the accounts of professional entertainers."

Because an autoethnographic account is a sociological observation, not an empirical scientific claim. I cited Crossley's work as an example of what some women experience. I did not cite is as scientific evidence as to whether breastfeeding is beneficial.

If people want to point to Ricki Lake or Suzanne Somers personal experiences as similar to their experiences, there would be no problem. Instead they cite starlets' experience and opinions as if they were scientific evidence on the safety of various medical treatments.

Ricki Lake says homebirth has been shown to be as safe as hospital birth. That's empirically false.

Jenny McCarthy says that vaccines caused her some to develop autism. That's false.

Suzanne Somers says that chemotherapy doesn't effectively treat or cure cancer. That's false, too.

Determining the safety of homebirth, the type and cause of vaccine side effects and the efficacy of chemotherapy require years of specialized training. B movie starlets who dropped out of college don't have that training, nor do they claim to have it. They simply assert that it's not necessary. Not surprisingly, they are wrong about that, too.

"If people want to point to Ricki Lake or Suzanne Somers personal experiences as similar to their experiences, there would be no problem. "

I thought that is how most people take it. That is, the personal experience of an individual person with the inevitable "lesson learned" tacked on the end. Just like the next door neighbor, and taken just as skeptically as one would take their generalizations from their personal experience.

However, if people are, in fact, taking this stuff overly seriously, then I suppose it is a problem.

Even worse, when did medical experts become 'B' movie starlets?

YES!!! Its scary that these celebrities 1) feel they are qualified to dispense medical advice 2) have a more prominent podium than qualified medical/science experts 3) are rarely publicly challenged.
Great post.

Nick Carraway:
"If I were a physician, I would like to freely interchange that label with that of a scientist at will. Some physicians are, in fact, scientists with full credentials (Ph.Ds) and others pass their exams and boards and simply practice their trade."

You bring up a really interesting point, and there are in fact several more distinctions to be made:
1. masters level scientists
2. Ph.D. level scientists in academia
3. Ph.D. level scientists in clinical research settings
4. Ph.D. level scientists in industry
5. MD/Ph.D. level scientists in any of the above settings
6. MD/Ph.D., practicing physicians who also conduct scientific experiments and run labs
7. MD/Ph.D. who are only practicing physicians
8. MDs who are mainly conducting research
9. MDs who are conducting research and are practicing physicians
10. MDs who are just practicing physicians
11. people holding degrees who have left research or clinical practice all together
and probably many more potential scenarios...

And yes, it is important to know your source.

Thanks, aliquot.

Your training was worth it. This blog is also worth it. I cannot believe the misplacement of trust in this society. Your post is like a magnifying glass. Wow. Just. Wow.

Mark I,

It's scary, isn't it?

Like I asked you in another thread, what is your expertise? What training in infectious diseases, immunology, oncology, endriconolgy etc. do you have? Who are you to belittle those ladies that took their health and the health of their children into their own hands with such great success? I know, you won't answer those question, nor did you answer whether or not you are still a licenses MD. Your bio says your an Ob-Gyn....so, I guess if we ever have a yeast infection pandemic....your the person to come to.

"What training in infectious diseases, immunology, oncology, endriconolgy etc. do you have?"

I have quite a bit of training in all those areas, as it happens.

I agree with you completely. Now even Bill Maher, who I actually like, is on the anti-vaccine wagon. He is actually intelligent, but not intelligent enough to know the limits of his expertise. These people need to at least take the anatomy and physiology class that I teach at a community college before they start pretending to be experts. The lack of real science education in America is becoming more and more apparent...

C'mon, Amy; Suzanne Somers isn't a B-movie starlet, she was a TV starlet!

But seriously.

This is something I've wondered for a while: if a person doesn't have a medical degree but does have a degree in some scientific field (choose one: biology, chemistry, physics, what have you), if they self-educate, at what point would it be fair to consider him or her an expert, or well-informed, or hell, even knowledgeable on their self-educated topic? When they've had articles published in peer-reviewed journals? When they've done accepted research? Where would it be reasonable to set the bar? And conversely, at what point do we write off someone who, although appearing to have the requisite level of "acceptedness" (sorry), has become obsolete or fallen behind or whatever (e.g., Linus Pauling and his vitamin C obsession)?

To use an analogy, in England there are quite good and proficient amateur musicians; they give performances, they're recognized as excellent musicians, but they don't get paid for it. No one argues that they are unworthy of having musical opinions; they've demonstrated their knowledge and ability. How would it work in other fields, like medicine?

I'm not being snarky here; I'm wondering. Certainly I don't think any of the yahoos you named above qualify; I'm wondering in general.

Ablonde is quite right: improvements in sanitation have been immensely important in improving public health. Historically, it took a physician, John Snow, to do the hard work of documenting this in the case of cholera (the Broad Street epidemic in London, 1854). So the medical profession can, indeed, take a large chunk of the credit for our improved health and longevity.

Ahhh....just more of "I SAY SO" logic, no need to back it up with any facts right? No list of any creditials (you know, like most doctors have, unlike you they seem to be proud of theirs), any list of any peer review work you've had published on any of the topics you spout off about? No? I see, just more of the same "ITS TRUE BECAUSE I SAY SO" and "NAME CALLING". I wouldn't trust any doctor that couldn't prove to me that they actually had some kind of training in the field they were talking about. Saying I have lots of training doesn't make it so. Unless of course all infectious diseases, cancer, autism, heart disease etc come from the vagina. The only thing I can see that exceeds your ignorance is your arrogance, but not by much.

You know Amy, just basic credentials, i just pulled this guy up at random. Where are yours? This guy looks like he might be pretty sharp in the field of OBGYN....but I don't see anything in here that leads me to believe I should go to him for cancer, an infectious disease etc. So, one more time, what makes you qualified on all subjects outside of OBGYN? Just because you had a few months training on those topics in med school????


Curriculum Vitae: Steven Bush, MD, MPH
Fox Valley Women's Health Partners
Provena Mercy Center (Aurora)
1315 N Highland Ave
Medical Office Building Suite 104
Aurora, Illinois 60506
Tele: 630 897-6044 Fax: 630-897-0180
Email: sbush@fvwhp.com


Presentation: Laparoscopic Supracervical Hysterectomy
view Dr. Bush's slide presentation with audio / Read the transcript
view Dr. Bush's presentation as video in Real Media or Windows Media

Q & A Session: LSH: The Emerging Trend in Hysterectomy
with Tom Lyons, MD and panel
Listen to Q & A in RealMedia or Windows Media / Read the transcript

LSH: The Emerging Trend in Hysterectomy - Course Evaluation Form


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Professional Positions

President - Fox Valley Women’s Health Partners, Aurora, Illinois, 03/99 – Present
Assistant Professor - Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke’s Hospital, Chicago, Illinois 10/98 –5/00
Administrative Partner - Women’s Health Services, Holy Cross Hospital, Chicago, Illinois 02/96 – 05/99
Professional appointments

Illinois Department of Public Health - Statewide Quality Council for Perinatal Mortality & Morbidity, 1998 – 2002
American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists - Illinois Advisory Council, 1995 – Present
Legislative Committee -Junior Fellows
Chairman, District VI, 1995-1996
Vice-Chairman, District VI, 1995-1996
Chairman, Illinois, 1994-1995
Chief Resident, 1995-1996 - Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, Mercy Hospital & Medical Center
Boards & licensure

Board Certified
Permanent Licence, Illinois
Educational experience

Residency Obstetrical and Gynecology, Mercy Hospital & Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, 1992-1996
MD Chicago Medical School, North Chicago, Illinois, 1987-1992
MPH Health Care Management, School of Public Health, University of Illinois, Chicago, Illinois, 1986-1987
BA Major: Biology, Knox College, Galesburg, Illinois, 1979-1983
Hospital affiliations

Provena Mercy Center, Aurora, Illinois, 1999 – Present
Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke’s Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois, 1998-2000
Holy Cross Hospital, Chicago, Illinois, 1996-1999
Grant Hospital, Chicago, Illinois 1996-1999
Courses developed

“The Financial Aspects of a Medical Practice”, American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists District VI Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, Sept. 1998
- instructed 50 Ob/Gyn’s- how to handle practice management issues
“Laprascopic Supracervical Hysterectomy Training Program” - instructing Ob/Gyn’s in performing this technique
Professional societies

American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists
American Association of Gynecological Laparoscopy
American Medical Association
Illinois State Medical Society
Chicago Medical Society
Meetings attended

American Association of Gynecologic Laparoscopy
Annual Meeting, Nov, 2003
American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists:
Annual Clinical Meeting, Apr, 2004
Annual Clinical Meeting, Apr. 2001
District VI Annual Clinical Meeting, Sept. 1997
Annual Clinical Meeting, May 1997
District VI Annual Clinical Meeting, Oct. 1996
District VI Junior Fellow Clinical Meeting, Sept. 1996
Annual Clinical Meeting, Apr. 1996
District VI Annual Clinical Meeting, Oct. 1995
Annual Clinical Meeting, Apr. 1995
Legislative Workshop, Washington, Feb. 1995
District VI Annual Clinical Meeting, Oct. 1994
Columbus Ob/Gyn Comprehensive Review, Nov. 1998
Ob/Gyn Practice, Coping in a Capitated Market, May, 1998
Laparoscopy for Residents, Apr. 1996
Hysteroscopy & Resectoscopy Workshop, Mar. 1995
Scholarships awarded

Illinois Department of Public Health, Full Medical School Tuition Scholarship
Scientific Chicago Gynecological Society, Awards Resident Research Award, 1996

Why might people listen to "B movie starlets"? Because you and the rest of the for-profit medical establishment have created a bloated, wasteful, contrived, bullshit medical system that has failed! I eagerly await the total collapse of the American medical etablishment, and it will fail just as all evil unltimately fails. To profit from a public brainwashed by an AMA that offers little more than endless bills, endless waiting, endless unpleasant, painful, often humiliating procedures, and no cures, is obscene and evil......yes, evil!!

"How can anyone believe anything [B-list actresses] have to say on any medical topic? [...] Someone please explain it to me, because for the life of me I, like other doctors, cannot figure it out."

Maybe that's what's wrong. You, and apparently other doctors, expect everyone to accept whatever you say without you having to explain yourselves.

Don't think so? Then re-read your post. You didn't say a word about the actresses ideas or the medical communities' ideas. You just said, they're college drop-outs and I'm not, so ignore anything they say and accept everything I say.

I had to go offsite to even find out what the actresses and you were referring to.

As far as I can tell, Ricki Lake thinks there's nothing wrong with home birth if the mother isn't at a high-risk for delivery complications, Jenny McCarthy thinks that the mercury in vaccines might contribute to autism because mercury is a neurotoxin and the onset of autism usually follows childhood vaccinations, and Suzanne Somers believes that mistletoe extracts might help fight cancer while chemotherapy has adverse side-effects.

They might be wrong, but at least they tried to explain themselves. If you'd like to convince people that they're mistaken, you might want to do so also, because arguing about how awful Three's Company and the last Republican administration were isn't going to convince people of anything except, maybe, that Dr. Amy can't see anything wrong with ad-homenium and ad verecundiam arguments and she likes to look down her nose at anyone who doesn't have a MD.

Soap Box Amy:

"Because you and the rest of the for-profit medical establishment have created a bloated, wasteful, contrived, bullshit medical system that has failed!"

Even if that were true, and it's not, what does that have to do with anything.

I have nothing but contempt for George W. Bush and the way he ran the country. Are you telling me it would be perfectly reasonable to elect Suzanne Somers as president because George W. Bush did a bad job? It certainly sounds like that's what you're saying.

Phillip Lance Weir:

"They might be wrong, but at least they tried to explain themselves."

And that impresses you? Seriously?

Douglas:

"his is something I've wondered for a while: if a person doesn't have a medical degree but does have a degree in some scientific field (choose one: biology, chemistry, physics, what have you), if they self-educate, at what point would it be fair to consider him or her an expert, or well-informed, or hell, even knowledgeable on their self-educated topic?"

It depends on what role the person is taking on. Is he or she a journalist, a teacher, an expert or an authority? Being a medical journalist requires some familiarity with science and statistics. Teaching people the rudiments of a subject requires only book learning. Being an expert in medicine requires an MD and clinical training. Being an authority usually involves scientific publications, lectures, textbooks, etc.

MollyDunlop:

"Historically, it took a physician, John Snow, to do the hard work of documenting this in the case of cholera (the Broad Street epidemic in London, 1854)."

That's right. Have you read the book "The Ghost Map"? It's a terrific story about how he figured it out.

"Jenny McCarthy says that vaccines caused her some [sic] to develop autism. That's false."

No, it's unproven. I would have thought with all your college degrees , you would have mastered this basic logical distinction. I myself would never take medical advice from someone who hadn't, be they a B movie starlet or a non-practicing blog-doctor.

libertarius:

"No, it's unproven."

No, it's false. I realize that the vaccine rejectionists like to pretend that it's unknown, but they just made that up (like everything else).

Of course these people have no particular qualifications and are probably just a wee bit (ok maybe a whole lot) dangerous.

However, you ask why people believe them instead of doctors. Well, in addition to the fact that people often believe dumb things, there is also the fact that doctors have made mistakes in the past. And they often like their power, and like everyone else they don't like to admit their mistakes. So, when women had to fight for years, for example, to have birth treated as something other than a medical emergency, and doctors resisted and resisted the idea of less medicalized births, then you might see some legitimate reason for skepticism. I'm not saying these actresses are right, but I really don't think you should be shocked that not everyone immediately kowtows to what the doctor tells them.

My sister in law, the doctor, has been known to complain that sometimes people tell her they are a doctor when calling to ask what is going on with their elderly, ill parent. She admits that doctors will give more information to another doctor, and yet does not understand why a person might think badly of a doctor who refuses to be forthcoming to another person who may lack credentials, but not necessarily knowledge.

Oh, and I agree that Ghost Map is a great book. I'm using it in my Research Methods class this term. But I will remind you that the author credits the local clergyman, as well as Snow, with finding the truth in that case. Another example of knowledge generated by people besides doctors.

"How can you possibly justify getting medical advice from a bunch of B movie starlets who never finished college?"

Um, I guess the same way people justify getting their political news and advice from a bunch of movie stars who never finished college: ie. Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, Rosie O'Donnell to name just a few. In a free society we are allowed to be dumb and follow our own free will.

I do like Suzanne Somers response when people call her crazy on bio-identical hormones. She says, "I've buried everybody who called me crazy. And my husband and I are still thriving." So she walks her talk.

Shannon,

You will never find me saying that the medical system is perfect. Far from it. However, if you don't trust a particular doctor, or she doesn't treat you with respect, the solution is to find a different doctor.

I suspect that this phenomenon has less to do with how people feel about doctors specifically, and more to do with a widespread contempt for intelligence and expertise. In my children's school system, they no longer publish the Honor Roll in the town newspaper because it was "elitist." Yet no one considered for a moment stopping weekly publication of detailed descriptions of the school sporting events with emphasis on the prowess of individual atheletes.

No one would spend a dime to watch a bunch of B-movie actors playing basketball. They'd insist on real expertise. Yet people become frightened and intimidated by intellectual expertise and settle for the medical advice of B-movie starlets. That's a real problem for our society.

"the author credits the local clergyman, as well as Snow, with finding the truth in that case. Another example of knowledge generated by people besides doctors."

But as you know from the book, the clergyman never tried to make money by giving medical advice to other people. That's the real difference.

The clergyman provided valuable evidence, but he did not do the experiments or interpret the epidemiological data that led to the discovery that cholera was transmitted through water.

Deborah Young:

"So she walks her talk."

No, she doesn't. She lives in a fantasy world.

You know she had a lumpectomy and she had radiation for her breast cancer. She prefers to pretend that it was her personal "remedy" that is responsible for the fact that she is remission. That's absurd.

and you forgot the brilliance of Farakkan who says the government is killing people with H1N1 because the earth can't sustain this many people. And Meryl Streep and Jessica Lange preaching on capitol hill about fertilizer because they played farmers in a movie. As always, it's the dumbing down of America. Great post. Rated

McCarthy and Sommers I don't know much about, but all Ricki is is doing is writing a book and "heaven forbid" encouraging women to realize that they DO have options in birth. I've seen several of her interviews and I have NEVER heard her claim to be an expert.

She's sharing her experineces and trying to help women make the best choice for themselves (whatever that may be) And you know what, its not like Ricki is offering to deliver babies.

Have you ever taken a minute to watch a few of her interviews?
Have you read her book, or even a chapter?

Hate to break it to you, but sharing personal experiences and a point of view, is NOT illegal. Also, the only reason the AMA and ACOG got their panites in a bunch over The Business of Being Born was becasue it "dared" to ask questions and showed how fucked up maturnity care IS in the US. (hell HEALTHCARE is screwed up, period)

Maybe ACOG would benefit from seeing the documentory as a chance to sit back and find ways to IMPROVE the way maturnity care is handled in this country, instead of throwing a bitch fit like a spoiled four year old.

I can hope . . .but I wouldn't hold my breath.

KristyCC:

"it's the dumbing down of America."

I'm afraid you're right.

LadyMiko:

"encouraging women to realize that they DO have options in birth."

That's not the problem. The problem is that she makes medical claims about the safety of homebirth which are factually false.

"And [discussing the topic they're arguing] impresses you? Really?"

Yes, it does.

Let's be honest. Saying they couldn't possibly know what they're talking about because they've performed in some second-rate films isn't a much better argument than saying they couldn't know what they're talking about because two of them are blond and the other one's overweight. Neither point addresses the issue.

If you don't want people to believe that home birth is safe, tell them why home birth isn't safe. Don't say it's not safe because Ricki Lake hosted a lame talk show.

If you don't want people to believe that mercury preservatives in vaccines cause autism, tell them why mercury preservatives don't cause autism. Don't say it's safe because Jenny McCarthy has fake boobs.

If you don't want people to believe that the viscotoxins in mistletoe can fight cancer, tell them why viscotoxins don't affect cancer cells. Don't say mistletoe extracts are useless because Suzanne Somers dyes her hair.

You complained about anti-intellectualism in America, and I think that's a valid concern too, but authoritarianism in America is just as worrying. You're not right about these three topics because you're a doctor, you're right about them because you understand them and can explain them to others.

So, instead of insisting that we just accept your word because you're an authority, explain yourself. If medical school really did teach you about medicine, that shouldn't be a problem.

Really, if the only people who can be bothered to talk to the public about these issues are actresses, you shouldn't be surprised that the public is listening to actresses about these issues. At least they're not arguing that Dr. Amy should be ignored because she's a blogger.

Great post! I would also add politics to the fields that celebrities should stay out of--why do so many people think just because someone is on the big screen he/she is qualified to restore peace in the middle east, fix our country's economy, or plan a war strategy?

Rated.
The tendency towards anti-intellectualism is deep rooted in our culture. You have only to look at Palin's Posse to see how far it has gotten out of hand.
Following along with the pop culture theme would be the proliferation of prescription drug advertising to the general public. I'm sure that you doctors love to see patients coming in who are sure that this or that remedy is 'right for them'. Now the doctor has to waste valuable time explaining this away.Your assigning blame to the neocon/Republican/fascists is right on. They pander to the know nothings and meanwhile every corporation in sight is bleeding them white. It's called free market capitalism or you could say dog eat dog or law of the jungle - survival of the fittest. Either one describes reality here in the 'land of the free / home of the brave'.
Our president has a hell of a job to try and civilize this society and he needs all the help he can get.

Amy, Even if she is, its not like she's trying to "practice"

This is where "using your head comes in" . . . .when I read her book, I thought: Cool, this is a good conversation starter. I didn't take it as medical advice. Even books I have read that were written by Dr's, I approached with a grain of salt.

Its like asking a Cardiologist for relationship advice, and expecting them to save your marriage. Foolish.

I think a lot of people want to believe that medical science is leading us astray; so many of us have had bad experiences with health care, and there are lots of cases of Big Pharma lying to us. But science is science. The fact that science can be misused for financial gain does not excuse crap science. Thanks for this. Rated.

KristyCC: I heard Farakkan's BS the other night, frankly, he is more dangerous than these women put together.

Phillip Lance Weir:

"Saying they couldn't possibly know what they're talking about because they've performed in some second-rate films isn't a much better argument than saying they couldn't know what they're talking about because two of them are blond and the other one's overweight."

But that's not what I'm saying. My claim is that they don't know what they are talking about because they don't have any formal education in medicine. It's just that simple.

Would you trust a bridge built by someone who once rode across a bridge and thought it could be designed better? Would you get on an airplane piloted by someone whose sole qualification was his status as a frequent flyer?

So why on earth would you take medical advice from people who never studied medicine?

coachcaptain:

"Your assigning blame to the neocon/Republican/fascists is right on. They pander to the know nothings and meanwhile every corporation in sight is bleeding them white."

I agree. People are easily duped by Republicans claiming to share their "values" while busily stealing their money and ruining the country with their incompetence.

Karin Greenberg:

"why do so many people think just because someone is on the big screen he/she is qualified to restore peace in the middle east, fix our country's economy, or plan a war strategy?"

I don't understand that, either.

LadyMiko:

"its not like she's trying to "practice"

She's giving (erroneous) medical advice.

An interesting aside: one of the midwives featured in her movie, and more recently in a Today show piece on homebirth, has been sued for yet another homebirth death. Cara Muhlhahn has already settled a malpractice suit in the case of a child who was partly paralyzed. This lawsuit is for the second homebirth death she presided over and the death occurred for exactly the same reason. She let the woman labor for days and when the baby was born it was dead.

Frank Indiana:

"But science is science. The fact that science can be misused for financial gain does not excuse crap science."

Amen! Can we put that on a T-shirt?

"My claim is that they don't know what they are talking about because they don't have any formal education in medicine. It's just that simple. [...] So why on earth would you take medical advice from people who never studied medicine?"

Because I'm not taking medical advice from people who didn't, or for that matter did, study medicine formally. I'm just listening to their reasoning. So far, the only people making any sort of argument at all are the ones without the formal training or the supervised experience. And that worries me.

Credentials are fine for picking out someone who is likely to have a basic understanding of a subject, given no other source of information to go by, but credentials are awful at predicting who will actually know what he's talking about.

For instance, Bush, raised by a director of the CIA and head of an administration the CIA reports to, with a degree in management and experience governing a state, should, judging by his credentials, have known there had been no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq for decades, but he still insisted there were, didn't he?

And Greenspan, head of the Federal Reserve, with a PhD in economics, should have known that a deregulated financial sector would collapse without supervision, instead was "shocked" that there was a flaw in market theory.

On the other hand, the example everyone's used in this thread about the germ theory of disease is mistaken. It wasn't the brainchild of a credentialed English doctor. It came from a bureaucrat with a law degree in Italy named Agostino Bassi several decades earlier, who was ignored because he had no formal training in medicine.

A lot of lives would have been saved, in all three cases, had people stopped arguing about credentials, and, instead, actually looked at the arguments that were made. Bush said WMDs are there because I say so, and I should know. Greenspan said everything will be fine because I say say, and I should know. Bassi said disease is spread by microorganisms because I've seen fungus attack silkworms on my farm and stopped it by killing the fungus.

Who do you think made the best argument, and who was believed?

Amy: "She's giving (erroneous) medical advice."

What constitues "medical advice?" . . . She isn't telling women to have a hombirth at ANY cost, she's telling them to make the BEST CHOICE for their own situation. That is not medical advice . . . . Even saying " homebirth is safe for low risk women with the proper attendant" is NOT medical advice.

Now, if Ricki were telling women how to deliver breech babies in their bathtub, then I would agree with you, but she's not doing that. If you want to dig on actual morons who give medical advice, without the creds behind it, check out some of the UC websites.

Your tidbit about the midwife from the film is unfortunate, but you and I do not know all the facts and were not present at said birth, so I fail to see why you brought that up. TBOBB, whether you think is BS or not, made some valid points.

Phillip Lance Weir:

"On the other hand, the example everyone's used in this thread about the germ theory of disease is mistaken. It wasn't the brainchild of a credentialed English doctor. It came from a bureaucrat with a law degree in Italy named Agostino Bassi several decades earlier, who was ignored because he had no formal training in medicine."

No one said that Snow was the first to articulate the germ theory of disease; his achievement (among others) was deducing that cholera was spread by water.

No one ignored Bassi. He was honored both in his life time and since for his contributions to agriculture and parasitology. He was involved in the controversy over spontaneous generation that still raged in Italy in the 1770's. There were many who agreed with him, just as there were many who disagreed.

LadyMiko:

"TBOBB, whether you think is BS or not, made some valid points."

But it spread medical misinformation, misinformation that Lake continues to spout on her website and in interviews.

For me, this is a no-brainer. It's what I call the classic American dilemna. Although we apparently got on the ship and left Europe to make our own decisions a while back, some people still want a sense of royalty, to have people around who they believe are more special than them. Celebrities provide that. At the same time, there's still the distrust of people with too much education ("They think they're better than me because of their fancy degree?"), so they want to listen to the celebrities because again, most celebrities provide that.

It's a weird double-speak thing that I really don't understand, but there you go.

Thank you for this post. The recent anti-vaccine hysteria has brought out the crazy in acquaintances in a way that has been really disturbing to me in the past few weeks. I can see that the trends that have brought us to this point must have been building for a long time, but they've been fairly quietly under wraps, I guess, until now.

The thing that troubles me the most is the way that we seem to have lost any shared sense of how to find answers or how to decide on what the truth is. Everything seems to be up for grabs. It's not just medical conspiracy, it's also history conspiracy and political conspiracy and on and on. (the conspirators running our world must be very, very busy guys.)

We're losing our traditional arbiters of - just about everything. Everything will be up for grabs at this rate. Is evolution, truth? It won't matter, really, if we all decide that our processes for determining truth are a sham and a waste. If the scientific method of finding answers is no longer how we find answers, where does that leave us? I feel as a culture we're in danger of becoming entirely adrift, completely unanchored to any common point of trust.

Another thought - I've been bombarded with emails lately from a slight acquaintance who wants to convince me that vaccines are (fill in blank with evil of your choice - she's got many conspiracies.) In the first response (I only made one) I mentioned that I have friends - a scientist/researcher, a public health administrator - who work in public health and they aren't evil and aren't getting rich off of anyone's suffering or covering up anything. They actually don't get paid much at all to, you know - protect us from disease. That's all they do! [aside - "We the people" set that up, before we decided it was "They the bad government."]

So then she responded condescendingly that she was sure my friends were nice people who didn't really understand "The Truth". If I really cared for my health and my kids, I'd become as educated as she herself is. She's spent years reading up on this, and she just wants to share the wealth of all of her knowledge.

OK, first of all, I don't have to become expert on everything. That's what we have these amazing things called Universities for. So that we can develop experts who can spend 20 years learning about one thing really, really well.

But anyway. That was what the rest of the emails have been - a bombardment of random youtube videos, something from 60 minutes (the episode that was pulled by the Bad Guys, or something) and junk science from Dr. Mercola and even worse.

So, even scarier in a way than just feeling snubbed by people smarter than you are. It's not that this woman doesn't trust knowledge - she's quite articulate and bright. It's that she only trusts the knowledge she gathers through the Internet and through like-minded friends. It would not occur to her to go to the library and request a PubMed search and assess articles herself. Her knowledge base (such as it is) is already self-selected and biased.

Sigh. I don't even know why I'm rambling on about this, but the whole thing has been driving me insane. I wonder when everyone else got so gullible, and then I wonder if I'm really the crazy one, or maybe aliens have taken them all over, and the government is covering it up . . . :-)

Thanks again for a great post.

There is a tremendous amount of assumption going on by some people here. One: if I take my car to a mechanic who knows infinitely more about my car than I do, or ever want to, then must I assume that said mechanic automatically thinks that he is "better" than me because of his knowledge? Two: apply this same yardstick to anyone in the science or medical field who has spent even more time learning their field. Why would you automatically assume that they feel superior simply because they have more knowledge than a mechanic might about their area of expertise?

It is a logical fallacy. No one can be an expert on everything, therefore, we trust that other people know what they say they know about their area of epertise. Why is there a "better" or "superior" component to knowledge? I guarantee you that if I or anyone else or their loved ones who've posted here were seriously ill, that we would be seeking the attention of the biggest expert in the field of their illness, and NOT an amateur who knows about acting but has not devoted years of their life to studying/researching that particular illness.

Anyone who is honest here would admit that. Only the intellectually dishonest would say that no, they would seek out the LEAST qualified person in the field to save their loved one's life. The whole argument collapses right there.

I may know a lot about writing and journalism, but when I go to my doctor or mechanic, I respect their knowledge. That doesn't mean that I respect them less or suspend critical thinking, but having researched their reputation ahead of time, I am reasonably confident that their opinion is valuable within the context that it is given.

Emma, you make an awful lot of sense here. I agree with you and Amy on this one.

wow, that's a great question. but then again, so many things are wrong with doctors in US, it's kind of strange you are asking this particular question. I mean, how many columns have you written on doctors who are peddling variety of useless crap, or criticized general medical practicioners who are, um lets see, performing plastic surgeries?

My point is - you as a doctor belong to an elite that has been doing all kinds of things, and belong to a capitalist system where pretty much anything goes, if it pertains to money - why would you think that celebrity cult would not try to enter that market as well?

You belong to a special club Amy. A club that has many, many snakeoil salesmen. Why be surprised to see some more?

zookeeper2009:

"some people still want a sense of royalty, to have people around who they believe are more special than them. Celebrities provide that. At the same time, there's still the distrust of people with too much education ("They think they're better than me because of their fancy degree?"), so they want to listen to the celebrities because again, most celebrities provide that."

That's a perceptive analysis. It seems like the most important thing in the US today is to be a celebrity, even if your celebrity stems from willingness to go on TV and humiliate yourself in a reality show.

wildmarjoram:

"The thing that troubles me the most is the way that we seem to have lost any shared sense of how to find answers or how to decide on what the truth is. Everything seems to be up for grabs. It's not just medical conspiracy, it's also history conspiracy and political conspiracy and on and on. (the conspirators running our world must be very, very busy guys.)"

That's an important observation. Though I blame Republicans for a lot of what is wrong in this country, the responsibility for this problem lies with liberals. It represents the trickle down of ridiculous theories like postmodernism and the notion that everyone "makes their own truth."

Many don't trust experts because they prefer to believe that they themselves are experts. If they think something, it must be true.

emma peel:

"I may know a lot about writing and journalism, but when I go to my doctor or mechanic, I respect their knowledge. That doesn't mean that I respect them less or suspend critical thinking, but having researched their reputation ahead of time, I am reasonably confident that their opinion is valuable within the context that it is given."

I wonder, though, if the reason you can do this is because you have a strong sense of self, and pride in your own education and knowledge. Therefore, it is not humiliating to you to acknowledge that someone might know more than you about a field that is not your specialty. In my experience, most professionals feel comfortable acknowledging the expertise of other professionals.

I don't think it is a coincidence that Lake, McCarthy and Somers are all college dropouts. Not only does it account for the fact that they don't have a clue what they are talking about, but it explains the way that they manipulate people by appealing to their sense of frustration and self doubt when trying to make sense of complex issues.

Irma Arkus:

"I mean, how many columns have you written on doctors who are peddling variety of useless crap, or criticized general medical practicioners who are, um lets see, performing plastic surgeries?"

I hope that increases my credibility. I am willing to criticize ignorance and greed wherever I see it.

Personally I believe that any human can learn anything they want to if they have their mind set on it. I dont know anything about these 3 who are by your account annoyingly ignorant. But dropping out of college is not necessarily something to laugh about because there are many who never went to one and yet have shaped the way of the world. That in and of itself is not such a bad thing. To make a true judgment call I would have to go and actually read what these people are saying but I daresay I wont because the fact that you, who have passed the hurdle of medical studies, denounce is way more than enough for me. Who cares about them and why are we then discussing them? tell is what you think. That would be infinitely more worth my while.

It's ressurung that the medical and scientific communities are getting their danger alert out there. We hope Dr. Gupta and others will discuss these life experienced, armchair advisors so that people will be inspired to weigh the risks of alternate views and practices.

Should we ignore the public health dangers of eschewing vaccines? Probably not. But should we explore all possibilities (with caution) for ourselves and loved ones--absolutely. Consider that days ago an article in the Times reported that cancer treatments have improved survival rates by 5% since the nineteen-fifties.

I'm not sure I'd visit any of the cancer "experts" Somers cites in her book. But after reading Chapter One, available in the NYTimes, I identify with her concerns about the summary guesses and callousness she experienced as a patient at a first rate medical center.

Let's hope the media will continue to offer us common sense investigations of the multiple approaches to health. There are many--standard Western medical, osteopathy, Eastern, and so on. We are in an era when more people are unwilling to close the door on options. With the exception of people espousing radical religious views, there seem to be few stories of people who died not from their diseases but as a result of totally ignoring medical/pharmaceutical solutions. Most will seek medical opinion and treatment first.

From someone who knows what it's like to be pricked, prodded, xrayed, cat scanned and spinal tapped for two years with no diagnosis at the other end of that very dark, very depressing tunnel, I feel qualified to say this: doctors don't know everything, but oh, they DO know how to prescribe pills to mask symptoms.

Had my neurologist taken two seconds to look at my pupils (and yes, there was every reason for her to do so), she could have saved me hours of pain and thousands of dollars. A two second look at my pupils (I have extremely dark brown eyes) would have told her what cat scans and a spinal tap could not: acute angle closure glaucoma.

Unfortunately, this was only part of my health problems though I never was diagnosed with anything but speculation. My alternative? I went to a chiropractor - a good one - and within two weeks I was feeling better than I had in years. All without pills, speculation and expensive tests.

Would I go to a chiropractor for a broken bone? Of course not. But doctors have closed minds when it comes to anything they didn't learn in med school. Shame on you all!

Dr Gupta elected not to be surgeon general because it would have meant an income decrease. Medical Science is always evolving. They don't have all the answers and sometimes they are wrong. But that doesn't mean that we should listen to crackpot theories about autism for example. Just recently it was announced that it may be a genetic issue. Has anyone read or heard what Ms Sommers does to keep herself youthful? I have a number of medical conditions and I do quite a bit of research to educate myself but I know that my doctor has the education and experience to make assessments that I cannot.

Traveller1:

"I believe that any human can learn anything they want to if they have their mind set on it."

Sure, but first they have to actually try to learn it. Lake et al. have made no attempt to learn anything about their chosen fields of "expertise." They decided that no real learning was necessary; there opinions are enough.

Scott Abraham:

"Change your pic. Let us see some cleavage, and then maybe some people will believe you."

I'd have to get implants to have real credibility, judging by the looks of McCarthy and Somers.

Very good post.

Just a couple of quick points re the comments:

1) It's not called "appeal to authority" (in the fallacious sense) when you appeal to the knowledge of people who actually ARE authorities on a topic. Pointing to real expertise is perfectly legit.

2) To insist on the distinction between "unproven" and "false" is to let a technical distinction get in the way of clear thinking. When something is a) unproven, and b) well-researched and c) biologically implausible, we're fully justified in calling it "false."

3) Stories of personal experiences are often interesting, and can help us understand how people experience illness. But thats miles away from *promoting* one's ill-founded beliefs, using one's fame to do so, and thereby endangering lives.

Thanks again,
Chris.

wind in my wings:

"I went to a chiropractor - a good one - and within two weeks I was feeling better than I had in years. All without pills, speculation and expensive tests. "

Acute angle closure glaucoma often can be treated only by laser eye surgery to release the intraocular pressure. How did your chiropracter treat you?

P1) From someone who knows what it's like to be pricked, prodded, xrayed, cat scanned and spinal tapped for two years with no diagnosis at the other end of that very dark, very depressing tunnel, I feel qualified to say this: doctors don't know everything, but oh, they DO know how to prescribe pills to mask symptoms.

P2) Had my neurologist taken two seconds to look at my pupils (and yes, there was every reason for her to do so), she could have saved me hours of pain and thousands of dollars. A two second look at my pupils (I have extremely dark brown eyes) would have told her what cat scans and a spinal tap could not: acute angle closure glaucoma.

P3) Unfortunately, this was only part of my health problems though I never was diagnosed with anything but speculation. My alternative? I went to a chiropractor - a good one - and within two weeks I was feeling better than I had in years. All without pills, speculation and expensive tests.

p4) Would I go to a chiropractor for a broken bone? Of course not. But doctors have closed minds when it comes to anything they didn't learn in med school. Shame on you all!

"Acute angle closure glaucoma often can be treated only by laser eye surgery to release the intraocular pressure. How did your chiropracter treat you?"

I thought that my response was understandably clear without going into the specifics of my surgery. Silly me. I thought this was simply a response to a blog entry and not a visit to the hallowed halls of a doctor's examination room. Might I ask that you read paragraphs 2 and 3 of my original response above... again?

Sure these women have some flaky ideas. That said, medicine isn't rocket science and plenty of doctors that I know, are not all that smart. Some don't think beyond their rote training. Plus Big Pharma has plenty of doctors by the short and curlies.

I had an unusual reaction to a well known medicine (Lupron) and it took seeing about 5 doctors who denied it (and didn't get it), to find one willing to say the link is there, that he saw it happen to others. Eventually, I found other doctors who said the same. I was one of the people who gave testimony to Congress. Is there a warning on this drug? Nope, not yet! The result for me was in inability to stay pregnant. This is serious stuff. Maybe the thermisol in vaccines isn't the reason for Autism, but I have no doubt that if it were, the information would be suppressed by the makers.

I agree that there's something worrisome when uninformed people with public platforms espouse unsupported pseudo-science. BUT, Ricki Lake's "The Business of Being Born" was extremely informative. You say "How can anyone claim with a straight face to believe that Ricki Lake knows anything about childbirth?." Well, she gave birth so she does know something about childbirth. Not to mention the fact that we constantly get mixed messages from doctors. For example, I called my regular OB/GYN because my milk reduced while I was breastfeeding. Based on a 1 minute phone conversation they wanted to prescribe Reglan. I was reluctant because I wanted to know why my milk was reducing. I found a lactation doctor who told me she was very reluctant to prescribe Reglan to nursing moms because of the side-effects and low efficacy. She called it a "last resort." Working with the lactation doctor I was able to avoid taking the drug. Are you saying I should have just shut up and taken the drugs without questioning because I was given that advice by a medical professional?
To a certain extent I agree that celebrities have a bad habit of using their fame to reinforce bogus medical stances can be harmful (ala McCarthy and the anti-vaccine crusade.). But, using their platform to encourage people to question medical professionals and to simply arm themselves with information can be helpful (ala Ricki Lake). Really, isn't it about being an informed consumer? Of course I listen to medical advice, but I also do my own homework and make my own decisions. I'm an attorney so I get the whole "I went to school so I'm an expert" thing, but that doesn't mean that I can't be questioned by a non-attorney. I would expect the same thing from you if you came to me for legal advice. How would you feel if I told you not to question my advice because I have a fancy legal education?

Frankly, I find your viewpoint insulting and elitist.

I believe these quackettes are getting their training at the WAUSAU WI VA CLINIC.
They have hired retard, er, retired quac, er physicians as "primary care providers".
My last insult was an appt with some Alz contestant named Kuhn.
I am experiencing pain in my fingers and toes of which there is a strong possibility of being diabetic neuropathy.
This ultra competent duck imitator said THIS:
"Oh, I get that. Just ignore it. It goes away."
We veterans here talk among ourselves and are totally disgusted with this bullshit.
I just wrote a two page letter to the "medical director" in Tomah WI.
It should arrive there in a day or two.
I lucidly described the mistreatment and wonder if I will be treated as one of those "problem patients with an attitude".
I'm 70 and take an ACTIVE INTEREST in my health/healthcare and the quality and/or lack thereof.
I appologize for hijacking you blog with my own concerns butt, I am pissed and needed to bitch.

I was watching the documentary, 'Jesus Camp'. In one scene a mother is home schooling her children and says, 'See, science doesn't prove anything'. But the magical thinking of the woman running the Jesus Camp proves everything. It's truly scary.

What's really sad is that our nations Doctors have fallen so far into Big Pharma's pocket and are so concerned with their own bottom line, B-Movie Starlets seem more trustworthy.

What I learned about American medical care I wouldn't wish upon my worst enemy. My father spent a very long time in the ICU at the UCLA medical center. He had been operated on for cancer and supposedly they had got everything but during his ordeal his kidneys shut down so he was on dialysis. While my mother was visiting him his dialysis machine came apart and his blood spewed out into the room. She immediately called the nurse who hooked it up again but my father sunsequently died of a hospital infection having never left the ICU.

I have been to pediatricians who did not know what a chromosome is, who seeing a child who could not sit up at four years, and was the size of a one year old, asked what was wrong with her , and when I said she was retarded, he asked where I got that stupid idea. I answered, " several doctors, three hospitals and 2 human genetics laboratories". And you want me to listen to people like this?? In many visits with various doctors I have come across a lot of ignorance.

I see where you're coming from, Amy. We follow celebrities leads on anything from fashion to "lifestyle" (I'm looking at you, Gwenyth Paltrow), to child-rearing (baby hair gel, anyone?), why not take medical advice from them too? They obviously know more than us non-celebrity peons, or even doctors who spent many years and shitloads of money on medical school.
I wouldn't take so much as advice on cleaning my bathroom from any of those women. I just can't listen to someone dispense medical advice base solely on their own experiences.
Perhaps if I wanted to know how to deliver the results from a paternity test, breast implant care or to know the best drink at the Regal Beagle, then I'd consult these ladies.

And Nick, leave it to a man to inject female jealousy into any critisicm a woman aims towards another woman. To men all women are jealous of each other, and when we honestly criticize someone we're obviously just jealous of that other woman's rack. Thank God men like you are around to let us silly women know when we do it!

For crying out loud--this discussion has gone off on more tangents than you can shake a stick at.
Why would people pay attention to a Ricky Lake, Jenny McCarthy or Suzanne Sommers? Star Power--even if the star is minimal.
What about when Mary Tyler Moore talked about diabetes? Or how about all the years we've listened and watched Wilford Brimley. Every time a "celebrity" gets sick he or she becomes an expert and people listen. Wasn't Dr. Oz considered or even offered the U.S. Surgeon General post?
Unfortunately, we're too ignorant, lazy, gullible, busy, distracted to seek the information we need--preventative or otherwise.
And sometime, why not address some of the other issues, Dr. Amy. Like the merchandising of health products (trying to convince women to take certain birth control products which reduce menstruation to 4 times a year in an ad veiled to convey a message that women are too busy for the inconvenience of menstruation) or the merchandising of ED drugs more for performance than for medical reasons.
These issues go far, far beyond 2nd tier celebrities and the "expertise" they claim to secure just that extra smidgen of exposure.

Chris MacDonald:

"To insist on the distinction between "unproven" and "false" is to let a technical distinction get in the way of clear thinking. When something is a) unproven, and b) well-researched and c) biologically implausible, we're fully justified in calling it "false."

Exactly!

wind in my wings:

"I thought that my response was understandably clear without going into the specifics of my surgery"

Your chiropractor operated on you eyes?

yakkygirl:

"medicine isn't rocket science "

Yeah, it's not like it's brain surgery or anything. Oh, wait ...

Loretta:

"extremely informative"

Really? What did you learn that was true?

Artist at Heart:

"See, science doesn't prove anything'"

I agree; the religious attacks on science have also had an impact.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15758

The country is pacified by a blind belief that the drugs being prescribed to them have been proven safe because our government health agencies have our physical health and well-being in their best intentions. This is a lie, an extraordinarily deadly lie. Iatrogenesis, medically induced injury and death, is the number one cause of death in American medicine annually, since only a small percentage of these deaths are actually reported. Each year more Americans die from preventable deaths due to our medical system than all military causalities in the two world wars combined. This is tantamount to medical genocide. One of the major causes of these deaths is the overmedication of Americans in all ages. The constant need for profits has created an environment that allows the pharmaceutical industrial complex to use their enormous financial and political clout to literally make normal life experiences into new diseases, such as social anxiety disorder, in order to sell its drugs. The pharmaceutical industry has been given the authority to pathologize life, with the drugging of our children, seniors, etc.

tomreedtoon:

"the question you should probably be pondering is: why is it that the medical profession is so roundly suspected and these superficial, largely New Age actresses are admired?"

I know the answer to that. Some people are so ignorant about science that they (1) think the truth depends on whether they like the person saying it, and (2) lack the knowledge to evaluate the claims of other people who have no knowledge at all like Somers et al.

demigoddess:

"And you want me to listen to people like this?"

No, I would hope you would know enough to consult a different doctor.

asianshoebox:

"Perhaps if I wanted to know how to deliver the results from a paternity test, breast implant care or to know the best drink at the Regal Beagle, then I'd consult these ladies."

LOLOL. You're right; they are experts on some things!

Walter Blevins:

"trying to convince women to take certain birth control products which reduce menstruation to 4 times a year in an ad veiled to convey a message that women are too busy for the inconvenience of menstruation"

Poor example. You clearly don't realize the pain that some women experience with their periods, or the heavy bleeding that can leave them anemic, etc.

Gordon Wagner:

"Iatrogenesis, medically induced injury and death, is the number one cause of death in American medicine annually"

Are you in the habit of making up "facts" in every subject or just medicine.

This is the price we pay for under funding our education system for so long... large swaths of under educated, ignorant people who take medical advice from those who "feel more trustworthy". It's not new, though. Snake oil salesmen who are not "in the pocket of big whatever" and don't need you fancy-schmancy degrees have been poisoning people here for decades. Just because the idiots are loud doesn't mean they are in the majority. Most people go to the doctor when they are sick, and most would take a doctors advice. From what I can tell, medical rejectionists come from the fringes of the right (for some dumbass religious interpretation I can't wrap my brain around) and the left (a weird mix of anti-corporate, anti-education feeling and new age conartistry) Being grumpy today, I say great! Leaves more hard to get vaccine for pregnant women! I’m just waiting for the day when these rather insular little communities finally reach the breaking point of herd immunity and a rash of polio paralyzes some poor kids. Only a matter of time. Happens now and again to the Amish..

Hi Amy, I just finished reading an article in Wired magazine (http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience) about the truth behind vaccines and the anti-vaccine movement, and I couldn't agree more with what you have said in your post and in your responses to comments.
I am mesmerized by the total ignorance and stupidity of the anti-vaccine crowd. My sister is a neuro-pediatric doctor who fell in love with Autism many years ago and who is considered an expert on the subject (she lives in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil)... and she can't stand all the BS these anti-vaccine groups push through the airwaves w/o regard to scientific proof or respect for medical professionals, who have given up so much of their own lives, just trying to make other peoples lives better. It's a life of donation and much pain, believe me, I've seen how wrecked my sister is at the end of each day after treating children with incurable neurological dysfunctions and I have seen her cry many times just because she can't find a way to ease the pain.
I do agree many times doctors are careless and totally disrespectful to their patients and mess up diagnosis that can provide the fuel parents and loved ones need to go for second opinions and alternative therapies, BUT, you can't generalize and I cannot understand people who don't look at facts, people who simply take bad news and blow it up in a disproportionate way that makes it seem like the undeniable truth.
The whole celebrity thing here in the States is crazy. It gives otherwise idiots, all the street cred they need to push on their whacky, insane and irresponsible beliefs. They do it and succeed because the media allows it, it sells!
It's a war that will be waged until the end of times and I think the Government (did I just say that?) should step in, and with the power of communication, show numbers, stats and proof that invalidates and ridicules unsubstantiated claims of, on one side incompetence and on the other "the solution".
Keep up the good work!

It seems to me that most of the defensive comments just prove the doctor's points. Additionally, I must say that some of these sorts of incidents may have begun to happen after medicine changed from the Marcus Welby community doctor to the more efficient business model now practiced. One is more likely to believe someone that one actually feels she knows.

You're right, Amy. Medical mistakes are not the No. 1 cause of death in America but there are an estimated 200,000 deaths a year caused by medical error. That brings it to about the No. 3 cause.
And you and I both know this isn't a made up stat.

As far as I know Ricki Lake never killed anybody.

I understand your frustration, but if doctors were a bit more forthcoming with information AND if it was possible to see them for more than five minutes at a time AND if they would answer questions rather than speaking dismissively to their patients, perhaps the spell of celebrity wouldn't be such as easy trap. Many doctors feel that the white coat means patients are to treat their word as gospel and so do not provide any backup information and are insulted if a patient dares to ask a question.

I have suffered greatly from medical mistakes and following doctors' advice to the letter and so yes, I read everything I can find about my conditions. Your time in school was not a waste, and neither is my time spent researching my own health and conditions. My health is far better as a result, and my doctor and I work together rather than against each other. The medical profession would be smart to simply dismiss the celebrity claims with actual facts instead of getting their feathers all ruffled.

If you have a chronic illness in the United States, the standard medical practice has very little to offer, because they've already got you in their pockets for life. The patient has very little choice but to go at it alone and fight for any humane treatment she can find. I didn't start at that conclusion, but arrived at it after being a 'good', very sick patient for most of my childhood and young adult life.

These days, I may be a troublesome patient, but my health is actually good...which should be the point of medical care.

Before you go blaming the Republicans for this phenomenon please bear in mind that Hannah Montana cured The Hat of polyps.

"This country is pacified by a blind belief that the drugs being prescribed to them have been proven safe because our government health agencies have our physical health and well-being in their best intentions. This is a lie, an extraordinarily deadly lie. Iatrogenesis, medically induced injury and death, is the number one cause of death in American medicine annually, since only a small percentage of these deaths are actually reported. Each year more Americans die from preventable deaths due to our medical system than all military causalities in the two world wars combined".

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15758

And you wonder why people listen to these ladies? With this kind of track record that shouldn't be a surprise.

"As serial offenders of product safety cover-ups for over a decade, drugs have injured and killed millions. In the case Merck’s Vioxx, this one drug has killed 44,000 people and injured 120,000 others. Only in America could you kill 44,000 and not go to jail and get a raise. Should we assume, therefore, that the pharmaceutical complex should be trusted without challenge? We have also been asked to believe that the manufacturers were guided by a sense of public service. But when examining the top ten drugs sold, the facts reveal otherwise. In one example, manufacturers marked up a drug an astounding 500,000% over its equivalent generic version. Six other drugs were marked up 2000%. Pharmaceutical companies make profits higher than oil companies".

"The pharmaceutical complex has also infiltrated the majority of American medical schools and medical research departments. A recent survey in the Journal of the American Medical Association discovered that 60% of academic department chairs have personal ties to industry (as consultants, board members, or paid speakers), while 66% of the academic departments had institutional ties to industry. Researchers who receive funding from drug and medical-device manufacturers are up to 3.5 times as likely to state their study drug or medical device works than are researchers without such funding".

Iatrogenisis occurs when an intentional action is taken in hopes of a beneficial result, but at the cost of creating a more serious problem.

In Physics, there is a law that states, for every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction. Iatrogenisis, may not be so absolute, but when dealing with complex systems, such as the human body, one should be very aware that by chemically modifying one minor system to achieve a beneficial result, one should expect an adverse side effect in the greater system universe that is roughly equal to the intended benefit.

Therefore, understanding and avoiding Iatrogenisis is really being informed that any prescribed action is always a balancing of trade offs in the hope that the benefits outweigh the detriments. Most people would accept that fact, if they were given the facts up front to make a considered, informed and an intelligent decision prior to being medicated. Unfortunately, there are three major problems to this ideal.

First, scientists are not advanced enough to foresee the extent of unintended consequences of a new chemical medication. Secondly, the present system is closed to the lay person to do any extensive due diligence in his/her defense. And thirdly, the Oligarchy is more preoccupied with protecting and promoting their powerful profit position than the needs of those they claim to benefit and instead use their powers to crush any alternatives to their products.

http://www.cmo-usa.com/iatro.html

"Theirs a SUCKER born every minute" P.T Barnum. America has been working overtime, now there is a SUCKER born every millisecond. Those who believe this bovine scatology are by definition at the shallow end of the gene pool. Those who follow the advice of these women who's I.O is lower than their bust size, or men who's I.O is lower than their penis length, will fail their Darwinian Challenge, culling the herd.

I.O??? So your saying we should listen to someone who can't even find the Q on his keyboard? Talk about a shallow gene pool, you obviously didn't make it out of the kiddy pool Fish. LOL!!!

NerdMafia:

"This is the price we pay for under funding our education system for so long... "

Do you think it's because we underfund the system or because we undervalue education? We seem to spend a lot of money on education yet many refuse to take advantage of what they are offered.

Andrew Morris:

"The whole celebrity thing here in the States is crazy. It gives otherwise idiots, all the street cred they need to push on their whacky, insane and irresponsible beliefs. They do it and succeed because the media allows it, it sells!"

Absolutely. The media don't merely allow it; they aid and abet it. Many medical journalists cannot evaluate what they write and don't even bother. They just copy the press releases that they get.

cranky lady:

"I must say that some of these sorts of incidents may have begun to happen after medicine changed from the Marcus Welby community doctor to the more efficient business model now practiced."

It makes me very sad to acknowledge that you are right. I am a dinosaur; I trained before the advent of the business model and I strongly opposed it. It has dealt a serious blow to the doctor-patient relationship because people can never be sure whether the doctor is more beholden to the insurance company than to the person he is treating.

John Walker:

"Medical mistakes are not the No. 1 cause of death in America but there are an estimated 200,000 deaths a year caused by medical error."

I think the number is more like 100,000, but that's 100,000 to many errors. You should know, though, that many of them are nursing errors or errors of ancillary personnel. That's because the problem is a system failure, not a failure of medicine.

We have persisted in the irrational notion that doctors and nurses should never make mistakes, and that individuals can make sure that they don't make a mistake. Doctors and nurses are only human. Mistakes are inevitable. That's why the solution rests with system improvements like fail-safe devices and giving providers adequate time to actually care for people.

ephykk:

"f you have a chronic illness in the United States, the standard medical practice has very little to offer, because they've already got you in their pockets for life."

We can't solve the problem if we aren't honest about what it is. I assure you is has nothing to do with wanting to keep you "in their pockets." There's no shortage of patients; there is a shortage of doctors.

Some chronic diseases are hard to treat because of the nature of the disease, the fact that people often have other concurrent medical problems, and the fact that cure is often not possible.

We've made tremendous advances in treating infectious diseases and diseases of the young. In fact, it is only because people now live far longer that chronic disease has become a significant problem. Until the past few decades, if you got diabetes you died, if you developed kidney failure you died, etc. etc.

We have turned previously fatal illnesses into chronic diseases. Yes, it would be better if we could cure them, but we don't know how yet, and it's not for lack of trying.

Dr. Lucian L. Leape opened medicine's Pandora's box in his 1994 JAMA paper, "Error in Medicine." (16) He began the paper by reminiscing about Florence Nightingale's maxim—"first do no harm." But he found evidence of the opposite happening in medicine. He found that Schimmel reported in 1964 that 20 percent of hospital patients suffered iatrogenic injury, with a 20 percent fatality rate. Steel in 1981 reported that 36 percent of hospitalized patients experienced Iatrogenesis with a 25 percent fatality rate and adverse drug reactions were involved in 50 percent of the injuries. Bedell in 1991 reported that 64 percent of acute heart attacks in one hospital were preventable and were mostly due to adverse drug reactions.
However, Leape focused on his and Brennan's "Harvard Medical Practice Study" published in 1991.16a They found that in 1984, in New York State, there was a 4 percent iatrogenic injury rate for patients with a 14 percent fatality rate. From the 98,609 patients injured and the 14 percent fatality rate, he estimated that in the whole of the United States 180,000 people die each year, partly as a result of iatrogenic injury. Leape compared these deaths to the equivalent of three jumbo-jet crashes every two days.
Why Leape chose to use the much lower figure of four percent injury for his analysis remains in question. Perhaps he wanted to tread lightly. If Leape had, instead, calculated the average rate among the three studies he cites (36 percent, 20 percent, and 4 percent), he would have come up with a 20 percent medical error rate. The number of fatalities that he could have presented, using an average rate of injury and his 14 percent fatality, is an annual 1,189,576 iatrogenic deaths, or over ten jumbo jets crashing every day.

http://tabacco.blog-city.com/iatrogenic_deaths_americas_dark_secret__leading_cause_of_dea.htm

Wes Rogers:

"In the case Merck’s Vioxx, this one drug has killed 44,000 people and injured 120,000 others. Only in America could you kill 44,000 and not go to jail and get a raise"

You really need to get your facts straight and stop making things up. Vioxx was a case of fraud, not a medical mistake. Merck is facing $5 billion in trial verdicts, and now that Obama is president, they are facing a criminal probe by the Justice Department.

Not so according to your beloved FDA.

As many as 60,000 Americans may have been killed by Vioxx alone, according to figures from the FDA's own drug safety department.


It's simultaneously a milestone for consumer advocacy and a major setback for Big Pharma: a Texas jury has found Merck & Co. liable for the death of a Vioxx patient, and it has awarded the widow $253.4 million in damages. The 10-2 jury vote sends a powerful message to drug companies around the globe: if you continue to manufacture and sell products that kill people, you will eventually pay the price.

A whopping $229 million of that jury award was designated as punitive damages. This shows that members of the jury not only found Merck liable for the direct financial costs of one death, but they also saw Merck's actions as unethical, dishonest and punishable. This award is saying that Merck should pay for being evil.

http://www.naturalnews.com/011064_Vioxx_Merck_Big_Pharma.html

On no raving bits, you are off the mark when you say "I'd bet there are huge teams of physicians and/or actual credentialed health professionals consulting them and providing information, and using these women as spokesmodels, not positioning them as definitive experts."

More likely there are huge teams of salespersons and peddlers of quack remedies providing them misinformation and using them as spokesmodels, and positioning them as "definitive experts".

"Not so according to your beloved FDA."

Excuse me, but "my" FDA was neutered by the Bush administration. Please place the blame where it belongs.

You really should try doing some research. It would increase what little credibility you have.

"It appears that the number of deaths caused by Vioxx will be revised upwards to between 89,000 to 139,000 (the data is for the United States alone). Andrew Jack of the Financial Times who interviewed Dr. David Graham, an expert at the FDA, is reporting that the data is likely to be published in the medical journal The Lancet".

http://www.mynippon.com/vioxx/2005/01/vioxx-death-estimate-revised-upwards.html

"I think the number is more like 100,000"

Ummm....which orifice did you pull that out of? I notice you're rather lite on reference material.....again.

It should be noted that it took the medical community 300 years to accept the germ theory. When the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis first introduced the concept of washing the hands before surgery he was literally laughed out of Vienna by the doctors and ended up in an asylum where he committed suicide. According to the CDC we have around 1.7 million cases of MRSA infections from hospitals each year that result in 99,000 deaths. Long sleeve lab coats,doctors ties, blood pressure cuffs/stethoscopes used on numerous patients without being sanitized have all contributed to this. In England, long sleeve lab coats and ties are banned.And no study published over the last 20 years has reported a relationship between dietery cholesterol intake and heart disease risk in the general population yet the number one prescribed drugs in the world by doctors are statins. 500 million humans are on these damaging drugs(See dangers of statin drugs and the Cholesterol Myth by Dr. Ron Rosedale ...YOUTUBE). I could go on and on but the point is doc... people have the right and the magnificant opportunity to discover information that many doctors miss because they are just to busy keeping up with their practice.

Gary Kaposta:

"It should be noted that it took the medical community 300 years to accept the germ theory. When the Hungarian doctor Ignaz Semmelweis first introduced the concept of washing the hands before surgery he was literally laughed out of Vienna by the doctors and ended up in an asylum where he committed suicide"

Wrong!

The great medical historian Irvine Loudon, in the paper I. Ignaz Phillip Semmelweis' studies of death in childbirth, has described what really happened.

”In 1846, Ignaz Phillip Semmelweis … was appointed to … the Vienna Maternity Hospital, which was divided into two clinics. Doctors and medical students were taught in the first clinic, midwives in the second … The alarmingly high mortality in the first clinic had defied explanation until Semmelweis … Each day started with the carrying out of post-mortems on women who had died of puerperal fever. Then, without washing their hands, the pupils went straight to the maternity wards where they were required, as part of their training, to undertake vaginal examinations on all the women. The pupil midwives in the second clinic did not, of course, carry out post-mortem examinations, and did not undertake routine vaginal examinations.

This was many years before the role of bacteria in diseases was discovered, and Semmelweis suggested that the training procedures of the first clinic resulted in the transfer from the corpses of what he first called 'morbid matter' ... In 1847, he therefore introduced a system whereby the students were required to wash their hands in chloride of lime before entering the maternity ward. The result was dramatic. In 1848, the maternal mortality rate in the first clinic fell to 12.7 in the first clinic compared with 13.3 in the second clinic. The process of admission to the two clinics on alternate days produced, by accident rather than design, a controlled trial, and the large numbers of deliveries ... mean that chance could confidently be excluded as a possible explanation for the differences observed."

Why didn't more people listen. Probably because Semmelweis refused to publish his findings:

"...Although urged by his friends to publish, he waited for thirteen years before he published his treatise, 'The Etiology, Concept, and Prophylaxis of Childbed Fever', which is dated 1861 but was actually published in 1860. The treatise of over 500 pages contains passages of great clarity interspersed with lengthy, muddled, repetitive, and bellicose passages in which he attacks his critics. No wonder that it has often been referred to as 'the often-quoted but seldom-read treatise of Semmelweis'. When he wrote the treatise, Semmelweis was probably in the early stages of a mental illness that led to his admission to a lunatic asylum in the summer of 1865, where he died a fortnight later..."

Moreover, the notion that Semmelweis was a tragic hero whose great work was ignored is wrong:

"...But most of the claims made about him in the twentieth century - that he was the first to discover that puerperal fever was contagious, that he abolished puerperal fever (or that if he did not, it was because of the stupidity of his contemporaries), and that his treatise is one of the greatest works in nineteenth-century medicine - are sheer nonsense..."

Amy, I wish you were fully correct although you make valid points. I can only speak of the conditions that I suffer from - hypothyroidism, epilepsy and migraine headaches. I don't mind having to take a pill every day since my body doesn't produce everything it needs, but the war that I had to fight simply to discover that $ynthroid was not the only such pill, and that the TSH test was not the only thyroid test should have been unnecessary. My body requires T3 and I should have been taking it since childhood, but it took 3 years of begging with my doctor and forwarding medical article upon medical article just to get it tested - after having the hypo diagnosis 15 years prior and noticeably not responding to the 'standard' treatment. Since $ynthroid didn't work, all I heard in my teens and 20s was that I was going to have get used to feeling like crap, nothing we can do. It was all completely wrong, as well.

Same thing with my migraines. I didn't know they were migraines, I made a doctor appointment about 'recurring headaches', and was sent to a sinus specialist, a headache specialist, etc. Nothing we can do. Pills were prescribed, to no avail. A friend suggested that maybe these were migraines and I tried taking one of her Imitrex. It worked. I told my doctor. That is how my doctor diagnosed my headaches as migraines.

With a track record such as this, are you really surprised that Americans have a low opinion of the medical establishment? Thyroid problems and migraines are not bizarre, uncommon problems and yet all of my progress has been borne of my own research and the doctor finally agreeing to go along with my conclusion. And yes, I have a Bachelor's degree, although not science-based.

It's not that these "B" actresses are "medical experts", but in this day when 48 million have no insurance, when the emphasis is on "sick care for profit", and Drs. if you are lucky enough to have one spends his requisite 10 minutes with you "kindly" telling you that it's all in your head. Do you also realize that with the increase of hormones in the food, processed foods, and franken-food (genetically modified seeds), that cases of cancer, diabetes, autism, ADHD, and a whole host of other illnesses are on the rise - these aren't just coincidences. While there used to be protections for the foods that we are ingesting there are no long term studies - hon, we are the studies, and it ain't good!
Yes my dear Dr., you have paid your dues - and I respect that, but do you realize that my M.D. in me is also priceless? What these women are talking about are things that they did, because they didn't get constructive answers from their own M.D.s and therefore they sought alternatives.

NO. MY CHIROPRACTOR DID NOT - REPEAT - DID NOT PERFORM EYE SUGERY ON ME. THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS THIS (AND PLEASE.... SEE IF YOU CAN KEEP UP):

Had my neuroligist looked at my pupils she would have known where my headaches were originating. There were definite reasons why she SHOULD have looked because of my symptoms (headaches in the same quadrant of my face, halos around lights, sensitivity to light, etc.).

Once I went to the ER because I was having yet another headache that had lasted for 12 hours, I finally said, somebody needs to look at my right eye - it looks dilated. Voila! Somebody finally had a look see... hospital staff started moving their asses then! I was but mere hours from going blind in that eye due to the high pressure, and I'm damn lucky that there was no optical nerve damage.

Again I say, had she had the common sense to do something as quick and simple as looking at my eyes - especially when I was experiencing a headache while at her office - I could have been spared much pain and thousands of dollars, not only from medical bills but for not being able to work for a month.

And as I tried so poorly to point out before, there were other health issues going on separate and apart from the glaucoma. That's why I went to a chiropractor. Good God woman... if you need more than that, I feel for your patients.

I didn't mean to be antagonistic. That quote from a source I respect (rare) summed up my feelings towards modern western medicine. I like you. I think you're interesting.

ephykk:

"With a track record such as this, are you really surprised that Americans have a low opinion of the medical establishment?"

I can understand how people get angry at doctors; I've done it on many occassions. I cannot understand how B-movie startlets could possibly viewed as knowing anything about medicine.

I definitely understand your frustration at not being diagnosed early, but not everything is easy to diagnose. The fact is that the second or third provider down the line has an easier time of it, because the original provider(s) have excluded the more common diagnoses.

Spiritgirl:

"Do you also realize that with the increase of hormones in the food, processed foods, and franken-food (genetically modified seeds), that cases of cancer, diabetes, autism, ADHD, and a whole host of other illnesses are on the rise - these aren't just coincidences."

Think about it for a minute. People can die of childhood diseases, or infectious diseases that tend to kill the young. As those deaths are prevented, what do you think happens to the numbers of chronic diseases like cancer and diabetes? They go up, of course.

The increase of these diseases represents a VICTORY not a setback. It's hardly surprising that as life expectancy rose from 48-77 in the past 100 years, the rate of chronic diseases would increase dramatically. You don't have to invoke pretend threats like "Frankenfood." You only have to invoke common sense.

wind in my wings,

So let me get this straight. I was a doctor who saved your eyesight, not a chiropractor. Yet you are impressed with the chiropractor because, after hearing about all the things that had been excluded, he suggested an unusual cause of your symptoms?

I'm not trying to justify the failure of your doctor to diagnose your condition, but that is hardly a reason to choose a chiropractor over an MD or to listen to the likes of McCarthy and company.

I hate that some people will readily believe anything. I cannot watch any of these interviews Jenny McCarthy goes on, especially when she's on national tv telling not-very-well-educated what is correct because you don't see that many famous doctors except for Gupta, Oz, and the TV doctors...I did see Ricki Lake's documentary about childbirth/midwives and I feel like it's well done. Unlike our buddy Jenny and Somers, she doesn't claim expertise but she does say her opinion and doesn't state imperatives.

As for the education/credentials comment by aliquot, the commenter was spot on. I'm a graduate student in applied psychology but people ask me if I'm going to open my own practice or practice at a hospital. Sadly, what I study is nowhere near it and I know absolutely nothing about mental health in a clinical/therapy manner because I'm in the research sector. I only know how to crunch numbers, not recommend therapy techniques.

Dear Dr. Tuteur, you must be related to Dick Cheeney. The mind like a parachute works best when kept open. I suggest you come to the realization that people today are much more open minded when it comes to health and medical information. With doctors being either the third or eighth leading cause of death in the U.S. depending on which statistics one refers to, get off your high horse of certitude and applaud the fact that these women are investing their time and efforts in an attempt to make a positive change.The more comments you answer, the worse it gets for you.
P.S. Wes Rogers...excellent work!!!

It is so ridiculously tragic that people do not value a quality, legitimate education anymore. Discount the word and opinion of experts because the general uninformed and uneducated public has a much better perspective on anything?

When I get sick, I go to the doctor. I wonder if any of the people criticizing this post do differently?

So Amy, I guess you are like my cardiologist. You think you are God! You know it all, and someone who did not spend eight years at some medical school, cannot.
SORRY!
I have a lot of DEAD friends who listened to their doctor. They took their AZT like they were told. Then a little too late, it was discovered that AZT was actually poinsoning them! My Grandfather was given so much radiation for his cancer, that he eventually died from radiation poisoning. Yes he followed his doctors instructions. Of course at that time, they also thought they knew everthing.

I can agree with you somewhat. Some bimbo might not know enough about medicine as you. However that bimbo, may have had a medical experience, that gave her reason to believe other than what is currently considered to be sacrosanct. After all, many treatments over the years that were thought to be either safe, or the only possible treatment for many diseases. Have been proven, wrong. Who is to say, that five or ten years down the road, they may discover that the chemo people are getting today, is actually making them sicker. People took medications just ten years ago, which were discovered to cause liver damage, or heart failure. Who is to say, everything you think you know about medicine, might not be wrong.

I could just listen to my cardiologist, and just give up. Or I could continue to take natural herbs and supplements that strangely so far have managed to keep me going longer than I should have lasted. Perhaps it is the "placebo" effect, and perhaps they just might work!

Kenny1948:

"I could just listen to my cardiologist, and just give up."

No, you could get a second opinion.

I'm always intrigued by the fact that the people who accuse doctors of behaving like God are the same people who are bereft when it turns out that doctors are not God. They are just people. Some are better at their jobs than others. Some are absolutely terrible.

Disagreeing with the opinion of a particular expert does NOT mean that the only choice is to listen to someone like McCarthy et al. who couldn't possibly know what they are talking about. It just means that you need to consult additional experts.

Ms Peel and Dr. Tuteur seem to agree that not trusting experts is anti-this and anti- that. Well it has been my experience that many, many experts have serious cases of tunnel vision- hubris. They ofter "know" only what they were told/taught by others. They are the least intellectual individuals considering the amount of education they have consumed. They are slow to change their minds in the face of over whelming information and evidence to the contrary. A simple example was the treatment of stomach ulcers. For years and years ALL doctors did what they were told in medical school, bland diets, less stress, anti-acids, surgery and on and on. One day a researcher thought to look under a microscope and low and behold ulcers were found be to caused, in most instances ,by a bacteria. Now you almost never hear of people with ulcers. Now did anyone apologize or take responsibility for the hundreds of thousands of unnecessary surgeries or improperly treated cases where loved ones and trusting people died or suffered unnecessary painful lives. NO! Fees were pocketed and the entire field of experts moved on without looking back. Folk cures and practices have been dismissed wholesale by the experts in order to corner and control the entire field of medicine. The so called experts have done this in every field through restricted licensing, required "education" and other means of excluding people and ideas that don't "fit." The cult of expertise is often deferred to by the three branches of government without any attempt to test or critically examine what is being attested to by the expert. My point is often being skeptical of experts is not anti anything. Most true intellectuals do not defer to "experts" just because they or someone else says they are an expert. Experts are ofter the least intellectual individuals considering the amount of education they have consumed.

Dear Amy,

I generally agree with what you are saying. However, I do have a couple of observations. First, I've had a chronic disease most of my life and I've dealt with doctors for a long time. My experience has been that doctors are often wrong. I've had at least one situation where a doctor basically told me that I did not have the disease for which I'd been treated for about 20 years. After taking me off my medications, I lived with about a month or so of flare-ups; when he would not change his mind, I got a new doctor who, of course, confirmed that I did have the disease and treated me accordingly. (This situation actually worked out for the better, but I won't bore you any further with the details). I've had other, similar experiences. So, while I trust doctors with my health, I also have a healthy skepticism about their infallibility and, as an extension of that, their authority. I'm not saying this is a reason not to take medical/expert advice seriously, but we should also be able to make intelligent and informed decisions for ourselves. (The emphasis on intelligent and informed).

That leads to my second point: if somone is willing to take the time and make the effort, it's possible to become an expert - or at least, be extremely familiar with - almost any subject. There may be a few subjects that are exceptions to this idea, but intelligent people come from all walks of life and not all have university degrees. I met a man once who educated himself about power grids and electromagnetic fields over the course of a year or so because of his interest (for family reasons) in the topic. I don't know much about what these various actresses are saying or protesting (the only one I've heard about is Jenny McCarthy's campaign against a vaccine she claims causes autism) but it is not impossible to believe that at least some of these women have done their homework on their chosen subject and are intelligent enough to make sense of what they are reading/investigating.

Again, I want to reiterate that I agree with your points. The anti-intellectualism that permeates American society seems (from this side of the border) to be pretty overwhelming. But I'm disinclined to simply dismiss other people and their concerns/views out of hand because they are not experts.

Sincerely,

Shaun

BudGor:

"One day a researcher thought to look under a microscope and low and behold ulcers were found be to caused, in most instances ,by a bacteria."

It is ironic that you use ulcers as an example, because it is an example of the scientific evidence being ignored because it disagreed with conventional wisdom. In other words, in the case of ulcers, doctors did what lay people do all the time; they gave greater weight to what they believed than to what the evidence showed.

The fact that ulcers were associated with Heliobacter pylori has been known since the 1940's. As it happens, a relative of mine made the initial discovery. He could not grow the bacteria from the stomach samples using the technology of the time, and that allowed others to dismiss his findings. Everyone "knew" that ulcers were caused by acid and stress.

It took decades for other scientists to come back to this pioneering work. The delay was caused by scientists acting like lay people, not by any failure of science.

This is an interesting topic, so thank you for writing about it Dr. Tuteur. However, I have to chime in.
First, I don’t know what books these three actresses have written. I certainly wouldn’t go to them for my primary medical advice, but nor would I summarily dismiss what they have to say as misguided simply on the basis of their formal credentials. See, that wouldn’t be very scientific of us, would it?
Second, and here’s where your arrogance shows through, Spiritgirl points to the correlation between the increase of processed, genetically modified food and the increased incidences of diabetes, autism, ADHD, etc. Your response: "Think about it for a minute. People can die of childhood diseases, or infectious diseases that tend to kill the young. As those deaths are prevented, what do you think happens to the numbers of chronic diseases like cancer and diabetes? They go up, of course."
Really? So that fully accounts for the increase? Perhaps you should think about it a minute. Your point that "We have turned previously fatal illnesses into chronic diseases" is utterly ridiculous. Smallpox did not somehow morph into diabetes once it was eradicated. Even if you are speaking imprecisely in reference to some kind of statistical explanation for the increase, are you really saying that because we are better at fighting pathogens that we’re only just now noticing previously undiagnosed ADHD in children? Or that there were just so many children dropping dead from measles before, we just never noticed their underlying autism? To say that the rise childhood diabetes can really just be explained away on paper and somehow represents a "victory" for medicine is just damned irresponsible. Doc, you and I both know you couldn’t defend that argument before a panel of your peers. So why are you tossing this crap out to these readers?
Finally, the pharmaceutical industry has become far too entrenched in the medical community. How can doctors be in the business of keeping people well when drugs have become their first (if not only) line of defense in the treatment of illness? Well they can’t be. It's a completely reactive stance. I believe this has come about through omission rather than commission: and if you disagree with this, perhaps you can tell readers here how much nutritional education doctors receive in medical school? For I do know the answer: not much, if at all. By contrast, how much Pfizer and Merck money is tied up in medical schools? A stunning amount. Your alma mater, Harvard, is one of the most beholden to big pharma in the country, so your views don’t surprise me.
Doctors no longer have the time to help their patients with the underlying issues that are causing chronic illnesses. Indeed, there is a huge incentive for doctors not to do so. A previous poster made the insightful observation that pharmaceutical companies “pathologize life” by pursuing a business model that literally converts normal life experiences into new diseases in order to sell drugs. The medical community, knowingly or not, has become their handmaiden. That is why you are reading a groundswell of disagreement here. People are not as stupid or anti-corporate or anti-intellectual as you are claiming in every other post. It’s just a huge number of people are beginning to understand what is rotten in the industry and believe that far too many doctors are getting it wrong.
I know, how dare they?

Great commentary, Dr. Amy. It is so gratifying when a blogger takes the time to answer the comments. Nice job!

It is intriguing to see how some of the comments prove your points on the gullibility, delusion, confusion and illogic many people bring to this issue.

I was particularly gratified at your calmness in the face of the chronically ill person who could not see that her long posts were, in fact, totally unclear in explaining why she was so enamored of her chiropractor over the doctors who actually helped her.

There is an issue missed in all this that people in pain and ill health are understandably not the most rational of individuals. It is so sad to see sick and elderly have to deal with insurance companies and/or a medical community hamstrung by insurance requirements.

I have no doubt that doctors left to focus on treatment and not whether they will get paid, will be the kind of doctors many of the ranters will come to love. Hopefully health care reform may make that into less of a pipe dream?

Bottom line: medical science works! Yes it is human and therefore prone to error, hubris, greed, etc. (Altho I actually think less than many other professions. I am 61 years old with RA, and I too have seen ignorance in some practitioners. Mostly my experiences with doctors has been very positive. It does pay to do some research on one's own and be proactive.)

As far as treatments go, if allowed to do so, the scientific method will prune errors out over time. It is the lack of understanding the incredible value of the scientific method that is damaging the US.

As someone else pointed out there is blame for this on both the political Right and Left. But the Right bears most of it. The hypocrisy of leadership on that side is mind boggling.

Right Wing leadership and pundits are like those "Head-on" commercials: causing headaches so they can "cure" them! All the scared really need to do is stop listening to them and I bet they'd feel better fast. LOL

Lots of things existed before science: religion, superstition, herbs, snake oil, myth and Granny Clampet's experiences. There even might have been tiny grains of truth in some of those. Who could tell since there was no way to test it except on people in completely haphazard fashion?

None of those things caused the explosion of extended life expectancy, pain relief, infant survival, general well-being that medical science has. NONE. OF.THEM.

In addition, since those pseudo-medical treatments have no methodology to determine if they really work, the only pruning is when enough users die that it becomes noticeable.

The final irony is when all the old methods: religion, snake-oil salesmen, and even Grandma, start borrowing scientific language to try to lend credence to their claims/products.

I guess we all, like Dr Amy just have to continue using logic in the face of ignorance. As an optimist, it is my hope that the pendulum will soon swing back towards rational intelligence in American public discourse.

"Think about it for a minute. People can die of childhood diseases, or infectious diseases that tend to kill the young. As those deaths are prevented, what do you think happens to the numbers of chronic diseases like cancer and diabetes? They go up, of course.

The increase of these diseases represents a VICTORY not a setback. It's hardly surprising that as life expectancy rose from 48-77 in the past 100 years, the rate of chronic diseases would increase dramatically. You don't have to invoke pretend threats like "Frankenfood." You only have to invoke common sense".

If there was a law against stupid, you would be facing a life sentence after uttering this statement!!!! There is no human scale to measure just how idiotic, moronic or just plan ignorant this is!
The only thing you have said that is remotely true is that infant mortalities have gone down over the past 100+ years, but it is NOT because of the wonderful medicines created during that time. It has much more to do with basic sanitation standards going up not only in the general population but by doctors delivering babies and the hospitals they were delivered at. People back then did not have even a general sense of bacteria and viruses that we do today. You know, all the medical TV shows today showing doctors scrubbing their hands like crazy, they didn't do that back then!
So, yes, just like kids know that when they don't turn in their homework or bomb a test and get a zero, it's going to drop their overall grade like a rock. People that survived our ignorance at that time had a very nice life expectancy. Don't believe it, go look in an old grave yard.

http://www.plimoth.org/discover/myth/dead-at-40.php

The statement that an increase in disease is somehow a victory is unbelievable and shows me without a doubt you have to be the dumbest person I have ever had the misfortune of crossing paths with. You obviously have no clue of what it takes to restore health to a person. NONE! THANK GOD there are true doctors out there that understand we are carbon based beings that need foods full of nutrients so that our cells can regenerate instead of degenerate. Instead, we are living on lifeless frankenfoods that DO NOT provide the body with what it needs for regeneration, which along with over 2 million toxins that have been created since 1940 are killing us in greater numbers every day!
Thanks Karla in Annapolis for posting a fine response and pointing this out as well as other things. Also Spiritgirl seems to have an understand of this as well, your on the right track.
Just knowing you no longer have a license to practice medicine should raise life expectancy a tenth of a point. Thank God for that!! Your ignorance and arrogance is beyond offensive!!

Anyone on here that truly wants to understand disease processes would be wise to begin their journey by reading this simple to understand (Yes, even you should be able to get this Amy) article. Only once you know how the disease process works could you ever hope to do anything to restore health. I've seen it work.

http://www.relfe.com/health_natural/pH_human_body_balance_health_level_1.html

http://www.relfe.com/health_natural/pH_human_body_balance_health_level_1.html

reposting my last link, it seems to have been cut in half.

When did they become medical experts? When someone with "MD" after his name stuffed silicone in their breasts, lipo'd all the fat off their stomach, butt and thighs, and injected botox into their wrinkles.

The men and women who created their "beauty" - aka credibility - are also doctors. Why not criticize them? Please police your own profession before you go after the acting profession.

QUOTE:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2244
It... Read More’s incredibly hard at this point not to go even beyond Mark Crislip-grade acid sarcasm at the arrogance of ignorance on display. Here we have a woman who is apparently taking cortisol as part of her “bioidentical hormone” cocktail, and this woman does not know that each and every one of those estrogens she is taking is a steroid hormone. More importantly, Somers apparently does not know that cortisol is a corticosteroid (”cortico,” get it?), the very same kind of steroid that is routinely used by us evil reductionist practitioners of “Western medicine” as an anti-inflammatory and immunsuppressant. When used that way by us evil pharma shills, cortisol is known as hydrocortisone, which is–gasp!–a pharmaceutical concoction! It’s also “bioidentical,” too, proving once more that “bioidentical” does not mean “risk-free.” Indeed, hydrocortisone is often included as one of the drugs in immunusuppressive protocols used to prevent the rejection of organ transplants. Given that Somers has said that she takes enough “bioidentical” estrogens to recreate the hormonal milieu of a woman in her 20s (in other words, far more estrogens than a 63 year old woman would ever have or need), it’s not beyond the pale to wonder whether she similarly takes a significant dose of hydrocortisone (sorry, cortisol) as part of her brew of “bioidenticals,” particularly in light of her having fallen seriously ill due to an organism that usually causes mild disease in immunocompetent hosts. Yes, valley fever can sometimes be a bad disease in immunocompetent hosts, but being immunocompromised for whatever reason is still a significant risk factor for disseminated disease or the reactivation of quiescent disease.
After reading Somers’ story in Chapter 1, I shook my head in disbelief that Random House apparently didn’t have better editors who could have told Somers that she had just written something incredibly contradictory and just plain dumb when she wrote that didn’t take steroids in the context of writing how she castigated her oncologist for “not understanding” the role of cortisol in her menopause treatments.

ABRES411:

"I shook my head in disbelief that Random House apparently didn’t have better editors who could have told Somers that she had just written something incredibly contradictory and just plain dumb when she wrote that didn’t take steroids in the context of writing how she castigated her oncologist for “not understanding” the role of cortisol in her menopause treatments."

As Orac said, the woman is spouting "napalm grade stupid."

"Medicine and health aren't related."

Then why has lifespan increased from 48 years to 77 in just the past 100 years? Antibiotics, vaccinations, transfusions, surgery, chemotherapy, etc. etc. etc. have dramatically improved the health of those who have access to it.

well the increase in human lifespan is not just because of antibiotic not all taking anti biotic and medicine frequently. It is mainly the way of life. Now people way of life is so hygine, now there is little contact between human and unhygienic environment.

Now also go and see people lifespan and the body condition on Africans. There they don't have basic facility which itself reduce there lifespan.

While writing the blog you will be inside your Air condition room which even aviod direct contact with alien living being in air but before 100 year is it possible for them to protect


gynecology

http://www.gynecology.net

Sorry to be so harsh. You raise a great question. How could someone so unqualified possibly be considered worthy of public attention regarding medical advice? I just don't buy the notion that the answer is simply that the American public are idiots. I suggest you read Malcolm Gladwell's, 'Wisdom of Crowds.'
EKG Machines

Dear Dr. T:

In spite of what Harvard and Boston told you, you don't know it all and you can't possibly. Your haughty derision and dismissal of these women and the insights that they might be able to provide to others with similar health problems, insights from their own experience, is proof positive. It's an attitude I remember well, as I muddled through a bout with modern medicine and what Top Doc labeled nondifferentiated, monoarticulating, HLA-B27-related spondyloarthropathy 10 years ago. Which is to say, my right knee blew up to the size of a cantaloupe, and was hot to the touch and intensely painful to walk on, leaving me a virtual cripple overnight.

Top Doc was nationally renowned in arthritic afflictions such as mine and like you, had spent years of study. His waiting room was packed with people similarly situated, and an appointment with Top Doc typically had to be made six months out. Little did I realize then that a(n) SRO waiting room for people unable to stand was a function not so much of Top Doc’s renown and expertise as it was of his inability to cure anyone.

In my second appointment, Top Doc told me, “I’m HLA-B27 positive myself, and if I were you, I’d hit this hard with methotrexate.” Methotrexate right out of the gate. Methotrexate being a caustic chemotherapy. So much so that a patient cannot take it for more than a year or two on the penalty of his liver dropping out, at which time the symptoms that methotrexate masks but does not cure return with a vengeance. Not that Top Doc ever revealed to me such high and holy secrets.

You might ask how did I, a silly and ignorant parishioner, know such things? In the months preceding my appointment, I’d spent some time with the great equalizer for the layman, the Internet. I learned that there were two theories to arthritic conditions such as mine, one being that they arose from infection, one being that they were caused by an autoimmune system gone haywire. Some time around the middle of the last century, around the time of the discovery of cortisone, the autoimmune theory won out and today the infectious theory is largely ignored and discounted. In my humble opinion, that’s a pity. My experience is proof positive.

I knew that methotrexate compromises the immune system. So my response to Top Doc was, “No thank you. Until I know better, I want an immune system in fine fighting form.” Whereupon Top Doc ran off in a corner with his Dictaphone, covering his own rear as I was later to learn when I reviewed my medical file, noting that I had declined the recommended treatment over his strenuous objections. I also proposed that I would undertake a rigorous exercise program on that leg that included swimming and biking, “Actualization, not Visualization,” I called it. Top Doc was aghast. “We BABY swollen joints until all evidence of swelling is gone.”

My family was mortified. How could I not do what Top Doc thought best?! Easy. He was a pompous fathead in a green smock and I stood up to him for nearly two years while I dictated my own protocol, which involved taking a low-dose, long-term antibiotic, a protocol with virtually no adverse side effects that I wanted to try first. I also swam and rode my bike daily. Had I leaned over too far to the right on that bike, I would have been in serious jeopardy, as in the early going there was no way I could put my leg down to support myself.

Lo and behold, after a year’s struggle and intermittent and nigh imperceptible progress, Top Doc had to finally, reluctantly admit to me, “You’re in remission.” Long story short, it took three years, but I fully recovered, and have innumerable rim-to-rim hikes of the Grand Canyon, ascents of Mt. Whitney and century bike rides to show for it.

There’s a postscript to my story. Years later I had lunch with a colleague of mine from the early days at the big firm, a lawyer whom I had not seen in years, and her husband, Richard. Richard, I learned, had been suffering with an arthritic condition and Top Doc was his doctor (like me, what he had was not life-threatening, just debilitating). “Oh no,” I said, “he didn’t make you take methotrexate, did he?” “Yes” came the answer, “but I eventually had to quit it.” We parted company, and I promised to send the couple the letter I wrote to Top Doc when I fired him, just for grins. Actually, two letters I wrote, the first of which my wife refused to let me send, where I told him, as I'm telling you, what I really thought.

Less than a year later, taken by t-cell lymphoma at age 54, I attended Richard’s funeral.

Does that answer your question?

we must be more happy with what each one would live, if not you'll never be satisfied with yourself