I have spent the last few weeks trying to get to know Dr. Amy. What I gathered, as a pretty new contributor here, is her reappearance was disturbing to the OS community at large. While I read people being upset about Editor Picks and Front Pages, I sensed a deeper frustration between the lines. I noted contributors writing I’ve come to respect and their feelings about Dr. Amy. However, I did choose to keep an open mind as well because their seemed to be some venting being done at her expense regarding said EPs and FPs and I’m not into bullying (but have done some in my lifetime, so don’t read “hypocrite” here). And, after my own grappling with the elusive EP/FP, I am choosing to congratulate those who get, be thankful if I get “touched”, and ultimately write for myself. It feels pointless to do otherwise (for me).
What I’m trying to say is, “y’all seemed pretty upset. While I took notice, I still gave her a chance.” As of October 1, this chance ended.
What baffles me about some people who hold an M.D. credential is the aura of superiority they take with other people. I find that superiority not only annoying, but dangerous, when it comes to practicing medicine. If you leave out opportunities to be open-minded, you are failing yourself of chances to learn new and important ways of using nutrition, technology, treatments, etc. on your patient’s behalf. Even more alarming, you are failing your patient when you steer them away from those potential methods which could improve health or, in some cases, save a life.
Now, I have obviously not been Dr. Amy’s patient. So, I can not speak to a specific instance where she has done this nor do I claim to – so let me be very clear about that. My above note was about some “western” doctors in general, of whom I have encountered in my lifetime. However, I did have a disturbing interaction with Dr. Amy on Thursday, which made my blood boil.
On her post “Big Placebo says medicine never cures anything”, Dr. Amy grabs her title from a quote she uses later which is completely out of context to support her own opinion. When you use a quote in this way, you are actually misquoting the person. This is unethical. While I typically overlook this, she goes on to do this twice within the same article. Not only that, she takes on the same opinion that is actually shared in those articles – that is the problem with taking one quote out of a piece (is she assuming we don’t read the links?) Without boring you here, if you are interested, I will assume you will read the blog and check her two sources*.
Where she crossed the line with me was when she stated in the comments, “The problem with alternative health treatments is that none of them work, not a single one.”
First, I love that some American doctors like to think their idea of medicine is the only one that has existed in time. I mean, what did the world do before them? I am sure there are entire nations just waiting for their infinite glory and pompous wisdom…but I digress.
Back on topic: I suggested to Amy that this was blatantly false and as she was writing this as an M.D., skeptical or otherwise, she may want to choose her words carefully. When she puts those credentials “out there”, I believe she has an ethical responsibility as outlined in the Hippocratic Oath. I then proceeded to tell her of my personal experience I had where MRIs were conducted (before, during, after) which proved my seizure disorder was cured using an alternative health method called NMT or the Feinberg Method. I also noted, she began the article mostly about supplements and nutritional/vitamin health and now she was making a giant leap to “all treatments.” I asked, “If you are speaking to all treatments, how could you have possibly researched them all? Does that include massage, acupuncture...?”
You want to know her reply to me? Here it is…
Notice she didn’t ask: What kind of seizure disorder? What symptoms did you present? Did a physician refer you? I RECEIVED BLATANT JUDGMENT. She also blew off my personal experience because it lacked "scientific data". I told her I had MRIs? When did someone's personal experience become so incredulous to not be worth any merit? Again, because she has "M.D." after her name?
I then took the time to cool off and when I replied I provided her with the scientific study she was requesting. I also noted I was referred by a leading Neurologist from the University of Washington. What did she do? She deleted the comment – she censored the very "scientific data" she said she required. OUCH!
So, Dr. Amy, I thought I would remind you of your Hippocratic Oath, whenever you took it, and when you sign your name as such, you are required to uphold it. Not only have you forgot that, while this may only be a “blog”, some of us do require a little integrity in what we put out here. We’re not asking for perfection, mistakes are made, me included. But blatantly misleading people lacks integrity. It would be wise to readdress what you wrote and how you have misquoted those doctors you, for some reason, would like to be seen in a disparaging way. Lastly, you could be misleading people who are looking for your guidance as a doctor. This, again, is unethical. Am I repeating myself?
I’ve highlighted and underlined the parts you may want to pay special attention to when dealing with the “public.” If you think I am being cheeky, I assure you, in this instance, it is by design.
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH: MODERN VERSION
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon's knife or the chemist's drug.
I will not be ashamed to say "I know not," nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient's recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person's family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
****************
Please know I have also been a patient to very wonderful, compassionate, open-minded, amazing doctors who hold an M.D. license and see the place for all types of medicine. I have had encounters with Naturopaths and Nurse Practitioners of Naturopathy who did not know their hee-ha from their hoo-ha. That, however, is outside of the scope of this piece, but I plan to return to it as I feel the approaches from these two trenches of medicine do speak to part of the challenges in healthcare reform today. Additionally, as insurance companies embrace “alternative medicine” more and more (acupuncture, Shiatsu massage, bioidentical hormone therapy), the regulation and licensing of the practitioners is actually changing how they practice these arts so they can be “regulated.” As you can see, this is a deep and wide topic, so I will choose a different time to delve further.
Dr. Amy will very well likely continue to write her blog free of my remonstrance here - this I find very unfortunate. I didn't write this post to dredge up "Dr. Amy bashing", even though I am mad frustrated with her. I wanted to point out many of the challenges of dealing with arrogant M.D.s, the lack of standards with blogging, our own internal example of it, and to question who is responsible for holding her and others like her to a higher standard? Is it this community? I find it sad in many ways that the blogosphere perpetuates idiocrasies like the one I have uncovered here (in supreme fairness, as hard as it is, Dr. Amy does deserve a chance to reply). New York Times columnist Tom Friedman refers to the power of the blog phenomenon and its impact on politics: “at its best (it) enriches our debates, adding new checks on the establishment, and at its worst coarsens our debates to a whole new level, giving a new power to anonymous slanderers to send lies around the world.”
What do you think can be done to improve the integrity of the blogosphere? Do you feel it is important? Do you feel it is important here at OS? If so, how? Let’s hear it OS!
(*UPDATE: After clicking on her post, please don't click again. This is the collective OS communities' response to not encourage further Dr. Amy posts. This, it seems, is the only power to prevent the spread of such infectious dis-ease.)
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
bbd
S G
fireeyes24
Joan Wilder
Frank Apisa
Heather Michon
Salon.com
Comments
"What do you think can be done to improve the integrity of the blogosphere? Do you feel it is important? Do you feel it is important here at OS? If so, how? Let’s hear it OS!"
It's definitely important that we, the citizens of the OS community, do all we can to transcend the likes of Amy. Transcending means, at least in my view, writing posts that don't pander to the lowest common denominator, and not patronizing (ie, clicking on) posts that do. While such practices won't make the tabloid slingers go away, they help to maintain as much insightful, interesting, amusing, or generally worthy content here as possible. The editors aren't going to change their practices anytime soon, or ever really, but that doesn't mean that we need to buy into their vision of what OS is. I remember when Kerry Lauerman said a while back that Open Salon isn't a community, but he's since been proved wrong on that, and we need to keep proving him wrong. The best way to do that is to write the best posts we can, and to ignore the more egregious dreck that is promoted as EP and cover material.
And like Mamoore, despite the almost overwhelming urge to see what codswallop the "doctor" is dishing out on any given day, I won't look.
I appreciate all your contributions - sincerely. And, I do not think she should be allowed to put "M.D." after her title if she no longer holds a current license. I don't believe she would be allowed to publish in medical journals? This is unethical!!!
I agree with your feelings, and everyone elses about the UN-doctor. That's why I don't even click on her posts. It is sad to think some people believe her, though.
That really just came out now. It does irritate me that facts are not checked in the blogosphere and when someone demonstrates they are behaving unethically (misquoting, misjudging, etc.), they really should be reigned in. That's my not-so-humble opinion. They can be dangerous to readers who are naive enough to believe their bullshit.
I mean, would this stuff appear on the cover of Salon? Why is OS different?
We can "improve the integrity of the blogosphere" only in our own posts and comments and to the small extent we cooperate in boycotting those posters we feel display lack of integrity (there's a few others on my personal list - the rightwing ranters).
As for doctors, only patronizing those who are, ah, non-patronizing will work. My late husband's MD also did acupuncture, which surprised me (I'm pretty straight with respect to alternative medicine), and my current doctor - who is on probation, so to speak, having taken over from my retired long-time MD - handed out papers to prospective patients warning them that he doesn't do abortion referrals, prescribe birth control or viagra to the unmarried, and don't bother asking him for euthanasia. Oh yes, and he'd be happy to pray with his patients. This was a big turn-off, but there was a waiting list elsewhere (new doctors have moved in, so we could move on now if we needed to) so we've been trying him out, and so far so good (he's very pleasant, has an unexpected sense of humor and recently chased me down - via his nurse - to make sure he'd covered all bases re my going-to-Peru shots and prescriptions).
Anyway, in all things, most of us can only affect the people and practices in our own little spheres. And if, after a trial period, we don't like how they do things, we freeze 'em out. (They won't notice, but we do what we can do...)
Especially in a venue like this, where we get to play for free, but which is owned and controlled by other people, and those other people don't (apparently) listen to us...
Myriad - great story. Thanks. Yes, so far, the only thing I have been able to see is boycott. I am with you all for sure now. I don't think I'll give the waters a try with any returning "offenders" as deemed by the OS community at large. And, yes, I am making my list, too. However, there are a few people's lists I am sure I've made as well ;)
Amy says--and she has said this before, in one the numerous rounds of debate on this very topic--that she defines "alternative medicine" this way: Alternative medicine is medical recommendations or treatments in the absence of scientific evidence to support them and often despite the fact that the existing scientific evidence shows that they don't work.
The issue seems to be one of semantics. I think many people assume that acupuncture, massage therapy, and magnets are "alternative," but they wouldn't be under her definition. A good study published in JAMA about 5 years ago, for example, demonstrated that magnet therapy was as good or better for carpal tunnel syndrome than surgery. Zinc, white noise, and time outdoors have been clinically proven to reduce symptoms of ADHD (as opposed to the Feingold Diet, for example, which has been studied at least three times and failed to show any improvement in ADHD symptoms).
It seems to me that Amy is applying a standard that I myself would apply. Approach new therapies skeptically, moving them from the "alternative" column when they are demonstrated scientifically.
she could suck the fun out of the new years eve party at times square.
she is an idiot. she is a bully. her comment back to you disgusts me.
that she deleted your retort with evidence, even more so.
next time you feel a need to visit a "Dr" Amy blog just walk to the toilet, rest your typing hand on the bowl and slam the lid 5 times, or however many times it takes to change your mind. she counts "hits" on her disgusting blog and as far as she is concerned good bad or ugly is all the same. talk about quack! DO.NOT.VISIT. her repugnant blog...... please, and told ya so.
I'm sorry - but we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. First, if she was as open-minded as you are making her out to be, she would have left my comment up which linked to the "scientific evidence" you both require for something to be considered to have efficacy. I understand the requirement - I do - and that is a personal choice I can respect. However, when I did supply it, outside of having MRIs in my own case (and I do understand this is not a case study), she deleted it. That is censorship and misleading.
I do not require that same level of scientific data to try something new for myself, as I have had "western" medicine fail me too many times - again personal preference. However, for her to come out and summarily dismiss alternatives in which she has no experience with, without any regard to all the scientific studies, I feel is misleading. Especially when she uses quotes out of context to support her thesis - or rant. I don't think every alternative is correct, and I have been mislead. But blanket statements like this are equally misleading. I think the truth lies in the middle. I also believe the FDA should regulate supplements. They are advocated for too many things - just as much for money as pharma does. I am not saying she doesn't have some valid points.
I understand empathizing for Amy, I do. I tried. But that one point was not her entire post. And, she went on to say things like nutritional supplements do not cure disease - again - misleading. If you catch imbalances before they manifest into disease, like altered blood sugar levels, how can you claim it is pointless? And, better yet, how do you study that?
Lastly, and the best example I have, is Alcoholism. As a recovering alcoholic, I think this is the best example I have. It isn't until now, 75 years later after the inception of AA, that there is brain studies available to prove the genetic disposition of alcholism. Yet, the most world renowned Psychiatrist of the time, Dr. Carl Jung, could not cure people of alcoholism. Yet, when people started healing through AA, through what he called a "moral displacement" like none he had been able to manufacture, he readily invited them into his hospital to help. Think of the humility of that. A man at this level inviting drunks into his hospital to do something with all his training he could not do. At this time, this was considered "alternative" therapy. We were considered the bottom rung of society and in some circles still are. So...there was no scientific evidence: I thank that doctor with my life he trusted his "gut" instead of science. It's like ignoring what is happening in front of your face because the printer hasn't spit out the data.
Sorry Lainey - this one is just to personal to me to not speak to. I do appreciate your viewpoint and thank you for weighing in.
When she came back, her first two posts were rather interesting, even thoughtful, and she responded politely to the commenters. “Wow,” I thought, “she’s turned over a new leaf!” Then came the third one. OMFG. Haven’t been back since. I think she prepared those first two posts carefully and thoughtfully (not her hallmark) so that OS people could see how badly we had misjudged her. Well, leopards don’t change their spots...
That said, Kate, I agree with your concerns over credibility on OS and elsewhere. Yes, I think she is part of a bigger picture. I have no idea how one addresses the issue, except to stay away.
And, while she acquired a medical degree, using it suggests to the reading public that she is a practising doctor, which she is most assuredly not.
And remember, not everyone graduates at the top of the class, if you get my drift.
You seem to have discovered both the frustration of personal interaction with Dr. Amy that many of us have already had and the seductive power of using her as a subject for a post. I was trying to circumvent the personal and get directly into a discussion of the issue itself. I probably should have stayed out, since your post had the two inextricably linked.
Older/Exasperated
From what little we know of her, this is a woman who gave up her medical practice fifteen years ago (according to her son, who made an attempt to defend her once) to take care of her autistic daughter. She's obviously not good with people, or I suppose she could have maintained a private or family practice. But basically she seems to be trapped in a time warp where medicine hasn't changed since 1993. She's obviously trying to make a career for herself as some kind of freelancer, but she doesn't have the journalism skills, or the humility to consult people who are actual experts.
So she tries to get readers with provocative headlines, and arguments, and then strongarms them with attitude.
She is kind of sad because her medical career is clearly over and it doesn't look like she's ever going to grow much as a writer, or thinker.
But she brings in readers because medical ethics are always a hot topic. The best we can do is pray that somebody who really is capable of blogging about these issues with more substance and subtlety shows up.
But the reality is that a lot of doctor bloggers get their readership from challenging other doctor media personalities. And getting involved in these dust ups is just a huge waste of time. Something I seem to have to keep learning over and over again (mostly because Amy is such a humorless bully that I find it really hard the resist mouthing off. But I AM TRYING.)
@Stellaa - thanks. I did try to be thoughtful about it and questioned myself deeply about why I was so angry. Trust me, if I was just offended I would not have put a post out here. That's just not me. It was some concern based on personal experience of the "west" versus "east" discussion, and how summarily dismissive the "west" can be be - it was my questioning whether it was ethical or not for someone to blog with an "M.D." behind her name and not be responsible for journalistic integrity or the quality of knowledge she is expressing - I was curious what others thought - I wanted to know how do "we" improve the credibility of the blogosphere - and I wanted to know if anyone had a responsibility for the ethics of posts, if so, who? While I realize there was going to be some degree of Amy bashing and ranting, I feel like there has been some thoughtful conversation, too. I am grateful...it is helping me to spread my wings and understand the experience I want to create for myself here (OS/Blogging) as well as how to question my experience with others - not just Dr. Amy.
But, if we ever do disagree, I think we both are the type of ladies who can do it respectfully. And, I don't think we do in terms of alternative health - I just think how we go about choosing it is different. It is personal preference and we all have our own ways of making choices - all equally valid. Lastly, I do hope you did not see this as an Amy "bashing" post. If that is how it was read - I really missed my mark.
Thank you for coming back to comment - I am glad you did. Your example of the ADHD/Feingold diet lacking in scientific support really did round out my post. I eluded to alternative choices sometimes not being "good", but did not give an example. I appreciate that.
I like how your comments went from, "Ethics don't matter anymore. Just look at FOX News. Everyone is lying about everything. Join the parade" to "The only thing we can do from here is just to start negatively profiling Dr. Amy."
I think what struck me about this is you came back and gave an answer to how to take action if ethics are on the line. Does it matter in this case? Probably not as much as I think - you're right. I got my panties in a twist. But, do I think it matters to the conversation at large in terms of the blogosphere and what impact we have on each other? Yes, yes I do. It was a valuable exercise for me and I appreciate your input.
Maybe, just maybe, there is a "standard" she is held to - but not the kind you (or I) think of. Maybe, just maybe, the standard IS eyeballs and views. Sensationalism and clicks. And if that's the standard, she passes with flying colors.
Every post containing her name that makes it into the feed does exactly that - feed the clicks, feed the sensationalism.
It's never whether there is a standard - it's what the standard IS.
Nice to meet you! (rated)
Wooo, there, I said it.
:)
Great post. And I'm rating just because I can.
You state, "Dr. Amy is as prescribed in the oath obligated to her patients not subscribers to OS." In practice, yes this is true. In general, it is a "covenant" with stipulations like, "I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings" and I believe those extend outside of who she treats when she adds "M.D." to her posts and offers her professional medical opinion in print. There are also "written" standards to consider, and general ethics to observe there to - and please note I framed that as a question, rather than a declarative statement. I am not sure what those standards are for the blogosphere and how they are enforced, and if so by whom? And if not, why not? Two different things I linked together.
I did not come to my conclusion she violated her oath by our one interaction - it has come over several weeks in her bullying style and dismissive manner. She is more of a bully than those who bullied her when she returned - by far - and I, personally consider this unethical behavior.
No, I do not consider myself unethical. I have not misquoted, misstated, or mislead. I consider that the hallmark of an ethical person. Ethics are subjective, and you may consider me otherwise. As far as lightening up - again, maybe I need to and maybe I don't. I responded to a post on your blog in which you didn't reply, that I have had to file complaints due to gross violations of the Patient Bill of Rights with 3 major hospitals in the major metropolitan Seattle area in the last 7 years. I am passionate about this topic and take it seriously. If that makes me "to heavy" for you, I understand. I care.
However, in the course of the comment thread, this conversation changed when Ranting Boomer stated "clicks" were the standard and essentially, others said "we", the OS community and beyond, are the only standard bearers at this point. The former helped me see, while I as an individual hold Amy to her oath, others do not and are not required to. It's unfortunate but the truth. So, it is subjective. So, in essence, this is my opinion and I still stand by it. I will not click on her again.
In terms of my seizures, as a doctor yourself, the fact you asked me what kind they are, etc., speaks to my point. You obviously CARE and this illustrates my issue with Dr. Amy. She did not do that. Without going into a detailed account of my medical history, I did not receive "herbs". Please reread the article and links to see what did work. I suffered from life-stopping "pseudo-seizures" is what they called them as they didn't have another name. I had them every day. The Neurologist determined, over many tests (MRIs, EEGs, PET scan, with and without different monitoring), I was suffering from a "conversion disorder" in my nervous system from stimuli (normal light, sound, etc. - things which were common place before). NMT was recommended by him, as he works in conjunction with Naturopaths (not homeopaths as you mentioned, which are subjected to much more rigorous standards and schooling - another fallacy peddled by western medicine), and the results were measured throughout. He was trying to get a study off the ground using PTSD sufferers, mostly veterans as funding is available for studies with them, and using fMRI technology to measure NMT results.
My results, from having seizures daily to being seizure free for almost two years. NMT, and the ND who administered it, helped me uncover underlying causes for the "conversion disorder" in my nervous system and that is why I can say "cured." I have literally have regained a level of nervous system health I never had before the seizures.
Some types of studies have been done already with meditation and pain management...but that is different than what I went through. I am looking forward to what they see in the next couple years.
Lastly, before you say I am the one making outrageous statements and claims, I question whether you are aligning with Dr. Amy as she is an "M.D." like you rather than putting her through a rigorous objective test. So, before attacking me, please do that. Her comments have been outrageous, egregious, and inflammatory without any support. I've done my best to support my reasons.
Thanks for your comments.
@Tink - I KNEW IT! I thought she may be your type -- domineering, huh? Kinky. Thanks for being you through and through.
She is nothing but a mean spirited , always right, argumentative, narrow minded, comment deleting bag of foul gas. Why anyone would click on her after getting to know the way she operates is beyond me.
Her popularity is a mystery to me, but then so is Glenn Beck's. They fall into the same category for me as know-it-all-know-nothings.
I'd read just about anyone's work on OS but hers. She is dead to me.
I rarely go after anyone on OS or in real life, but I do have exceptions. Dr. know-it-all is one of them. That will be my last comment on the not-really-a-doctor-doctor until the next time someone strikes that nerve.
And since she's a favorite of the editors, there's no point looking to her.
The internet is the wild west ... this is a relatively sane and safe part of it.
I am referring to ethics when it comes to professional conduct - oaths, writing standards, etc. Just to be clear, I don't mean people's behavior.
Giddy UP! I am so glad you are here, and, there are HUGE benefits to the frontier of the blogosphere. I was just speaking to a little part of the puzzle.
That said, Welcome to Open Salon, Kate Bishop. Have a great day!
I wanted to say thank you for taking her as an example, and despite having a frustrating experience, you seemed to try. I'm not sure about the Hip. Oath and all that, I think you may have overreached there, but I understand the point. What I like most about your post is it made me really think and I like that. Thanks for stretching me Kate...I'll definitely be back.
I commented that due to the heavy influence the letters "M.D." tend to carry, she was being irresponsible in her assertion that none of them work...and she threw "bibliography salad" and "ED50" and such big words at me. My little ole brain just couldn't take it, and I had to go have a good cry and an orange push-up.
God help her patients.
While I still believe Dr. Amy deserves compassion, as there is something not quite right with her, I still believe she needs to be accountable. In this moment though, my compassion goes out to you...it feels "sticky" when you first interact with these people. I at least had warning when dealing with Amy.
I am beginning to wonder if her whole shtick is sham from the ground up. She could simply be anyone who knows how to read the Internet and be a brat. My money is on that at this point. All the musings about her real past, hell, who knows. As Myriad said, this is the frontier and anything goes...
Given the sheer volume of writing (articles, comments, replies, etc.) that she has made in recent years, how on EARTH does she have time to be a doctor?
RATED
@KOB - Mucho Gracias Senior! I really like your stuff (fawning) and appreciate you weighing in.
@John Moore - I SINCERELY appreciate you coming back and weighing in. I need to be better about not assuming people's motives...and I can see why you would be critical of my claim she violated the oath. It is a perception on my part. Overall, however, I think we agree she dilutes the conversation more than she adds to it. I am thankful you are among to hear you are among the docs who remain an open-minded skeptic. As I said to Lainey, I am a little more willing than the rest...but, I've had good results. It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance.
Before she departed last time in her penultimate post "They Killed My Patient, and Then They Tried to Hide It" she went too far and got caught obviously lying about at least some, if not all, of her tale.
I do believe that she will go too far once again one of these days and then I predict that she will again flounce claiming that good writing isn't being rewarded and that she must leave for greener pastures.
In fact, I'm calling for an informal competition here with anyone who's up for it: How long do you think she'll last this time at OS?
I give her six months tops.
(I don't think ignoring her will really work because her strategy for getting hits doesn't depend mainly upon OS writers. Engaging her in disputes doesn't work either because she has no principles and is profoundly dishonest. I think better that we bide our time until she goes too far in stretching the truth in one of her stories and then we go at her relentlessly.)
I am scientifically educated and have always had a healthy skepticism for "alternative" therapies/medication. While a questioning mind is important when evaluating any form of treatment or therapy, it is also dangerous to be close minded to new and different ideas.
One of my epiphanies with regard to "alternative" treatments such as acupuncture and massage was witnessing their effect upon animals, which has been nothing short of amazing. It is often difficult to separate the "placebo effect" from real and tangible results in humans, but with animals, not so much. I became a believer in acupuncture and massage when I saw how it was able to immediately ease pain and increase athletic performance.
As for the big A, untwist your knickers and move on. Don't bother reading her crap, and REALLY resist the urge to ever comment on her blog.
"What did she do? She deleted the comment"
Please do not lie about me. I never deleted a comment of yours.
You can disagree with me, be angry with me, whine about me, whatever you want. Just don't lie about me.
As you should realise, your subjective experiences would not be considered scientific evidence. This has nothing to do with arrogance, but with lack of reliable data. We can't know why you got better. You might have gotten better without any treatment at all. To find out if this treatment actually has an effect would require controlled tests including a large number of patients, preferably double-blind studies. So Dr. Amy's statement is perfectly true: We have no reason to think that alternative treatments ever saved a single life. There's just no evidence for it.
There's a name for treatments that have shown an effect in repeated scientific studies. It's called medicine.
There is simply no reason for me to lie here. It just isn't in me. I had an issue with your behavior, not you as a person.
I have attempted many times to ask what I think are legitimate questions only to be either ridiculed or ignored.
So, the idea that she would delete a comment, especially if the comment effectively challenges her narrow POV, does not ring false to me at all.
She often quotes out of context or refuses to look at scientific evidence which doesn't support her claim. You can't have a real discussion with her. She simply won't have it.
So, forget her. Let her spin her very boring little webs alone. :) And come and read some great stuff here on OS!
Side note to Lainey: Alas, she does indeed mean ALL alternative treatments including massage and other treatments broadly used in rehabilitation therapy. We had an argument about it once. She deleted my scientific studies, too.
In terms of what medicine is, we will have to agree to disagree. Even the oath says there is an art to it. My ND realized he could not speak to the scientific efficacy of NMT, but he was seeing results with his own eyes, with several of his patients. He left the choice up to me. He wasn't publishing papers about it, as those do require scientific data which he did not have. However, he knew my life was at a stand still, and knew something was helping others, so he didn't ignore the option (which he himself checked out and experienced - another mark of a good doc, investigation). No. I didn't get better "just because" sorry. That is a fallacy. There were several patients at the time using it and more since then. Also, my family has used NMT for other medical issues as well since then. There are studies of its efficacy on the website with the link I provided.
No, they did not just get better on their own. It is this type of black and white thinking which paints no room for subjective questioning which is the basis for scientific study.
I personally live more in Eastern/alternative medicine. There are several billion people who use this type of medicine without scientific evidence to support it's "results". I doubt they would need an M.D. to come and tell them to stop what they are doing and wait until science proves it is working. They may even see that as arrogant.
I think science is beautiful when it isn't used as a blunt instrument to lob people over the head with. When it is used to question, study, prove and dig further. Everything has it's place.
You ask about integrity. Integrity is important and I think that if you treat people (and yourself) with the integrity you want to receive, you'll get just that in return. I can't direct other people's behavior, but I can do with my own.
I've always defended Dr. Amy's right to say whatever she wants and express herself however she wants. I used to visit her site quite regularly and actually had fun disproving her theories (not that hard to do, btw.) After she expressed a desire to not seem like an "asshole" (her son called her this, not me), I tried to help her understand how her writing offended her readers more than it engaged them and how she could write in such a way to not piss people off. I invested some of my time and energy into helping a virtual stranger.
So, why did I stop reading her? Well, awhile ago, she flounced off basically saying that OS didn't know good writing and basically we could all fuck off because she was moving on and up away from us losers (I'm paraphrasing). I don't have time or the desire to invest in this kind of behavior. So instead of me, she gets the audience she deserves.
I will state for the record here that I do not like her attitude towards her readers, I do not like her inability to deal in facts, and I do not like her habit of deleting comments that prove her to be full of crap. So, I do not read anything she posts. Ever.
Dennis Loo said, "I don't think ignoring her will really work because her strategy for getting hits doesn't depend mainly upon OS writers". I beg to differ, Dennis. Ignoring her works just fine for me - I don't get irritated by what she says or who she says it too because I don't read her.
Amy has as much right to post here as you or I, or anyone for that matter. Having said that, I have just as much right to dislike what she does and how she does it, as well as the right to completely ignore her.
I exercise that right on a daily basis. Feels good. :-D
I just posted something snarky on one of Dr. Amy's posts, and as I hit "post this comment" I wondered if she was going to delete it. Then it dawned on me that she hardly ever deletes abusive comments. If someone vents and calls her a sensationalist hack, she leaves it up, but if someone posts evidence to refute her claims and shows she's a sensationalist hack, she pulls those down. Why is that?
I gave her an opp to respond, and I can't get inside her head, but my only guess is either she is a shtick, or a non-practicing doc out of practice and needs to rely on black/white thinking, looking for clicks rather than substance, which is what the "standard" apparently is - as sad as that is.
The blogosphere is apparently ripe for this type of "expert." Hang a sign, answer with some level of credibility, receive an educated question, and start bullying or whatever to keep the upper hand. Someone "proves" you wrong - then delete? Anyway, as someone said to me in a PM, stats for a number of alternative approaches are just a click away if you are really interested. It's about sensationalism. Oh well.
I don't know - again - my best guess. It could be a lot of things. Many people do blogs for many different reasons. I've decided to do my best to stick to my stuff and why I do it, unless, again, I get roped into something in which I am deeply offended (as here). But, I'll tell you, I'll think triple time first, and email a couple people I really trust around here first BEFORE posting.
Thanks for the question...okay, really done now.
In the spirit of Andy Kaufman and Sasha Baron Cohen, Dr. Amy has taken performance art to a whole new level. Actually, it’s quite comedic how she adopts an Urkel-like innocence (“Did I do that?”) when accused of being narrow minded or insensitive. So long as you take any of her pontifications with a grain of salt, she is actually quite harmless. I recommend anyone seeking serious medical advice, not look for it on OS, or at the very least, get a 2nd opinion.
Thanks for the information. It helped my decision to stay away from her posts.
You know, she is controversial, so is great for OS in terms of the business side of things. As I learned through this (not knowing what a hornets nest it was going in), "clicks" is the business behind a media outlet like this. Dr. so-and-so definitely would draw attention. I can't say I would do it any other way from a business perspective. However, from a personal point of view, I don't need to be abused.
@T.S. - Hey, you made me laugh! Friends?
@Kyle - thank you!
@Spin Doctor - yes, performance art. I don't know how you can stand being attacked so much though if you are not truly rooted in your principles...or a shtick (or any number of potentials I would have to guess at). Her other blog makes people mad, too. It's her approach, not the information.
@BarbJ - You know, in the comment thread someone said she hold a license but hasn't practiced in ten years. I have had others suggest a multitude of other things, but I wouldn't feel right suggesting anything beyond shtick (as many people do that with blogs) as that is her personal business and I didn't hear it from her. She didn't want to clarify in any other way, even after I laid out the oath stating we all deserve decent treatment. Apparently the facts are all that matter to her.
@JK - I know, it seems challenging her character and temperment is fine, but don't call her a liar. I don't believe I did...I was stating my experience. If there was a glitch, she could have said so...it shows on the blog I clearly asked her about it?
Interestingly enough, on my last click over there when copying the quotes for this post, this was her last comment on alternative treatments:
"I will say it outright:
NDs and anyone else promoting traditional and homeopathic medicine are quacks who are selling junk merchandise! And anyone who buys it is incredibly gullible.
It's no different than alchemy, astrology, tarot cards, UFOs or creationism. They have nothing to do with science. The only people who believe in them don't know very much about science. And, most importantly, they reflect wishful thinking more than anything else."
-The Esteemed Dr. Name I am sworn by the members of OS to no longer say