Comments for ChOPRAH at http://www.randi.org/site , comment 1 to 25 out of 20 comments http://www.randi.org/site Sun, 22 Nov 2009 02:51:58 +0100 FeedCreator 1.7.3 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-8072 HuffPo is noted for their lack of skepticism. - Steel Rat Thu, 09 Jul 2009 06:27:38 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7246 Paolo, You have a point, but then again you don't. Because there is fairly widespread [i]misuse[/i] of the scientific method does not invalidate the method. There are pharmaceutical companies paying for comment and there are medical practitioners prepared to accept the cash. There are others who are prepared to call them on this and this is happening increasingly. You named one such person yourself. To say science disqualifies itself because there are those who misuse it makes as much sense as to say that evolutionary biologist disqualify themselves from criticising creationism because some evolutionists have supported and promoted social darwinism. As for being a layman and not being able to tell which scientific research is reliable and which is not, well, welcome to reality. On the other hand, if you are really interested, you can familiarise yourself with all the requirements of a properly conducted clinical trial, get some practise reading clincal trials to spot the methodological errors and to decide whether the conclusions reached by the authors are justified by the results they obtained. If you really want to. But there is no easy wasy, no. One of our PMs once famously remarked "Life was not meant to be easy". That doesn't mean you should stop trying. regards, BillyJoe - BillyJoe Mon, 15 Jun 2009 01:27:48 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7236 My original post was specifically directed at the assertion by Jeff in the article that "the best way to make money is to do what works," where my point is that the medical establishment cannot be trusted when money is the primary motivator over the public good and/or health. This is evidenced by the link I provided to FDA and drug company fraud and endangerment of health under the guise of "established science." Here is the link again: http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/00484/ketek-data.html When a lack of credibility exists and persists, as is prevalent in our society in many, many industries (financial manipulation anyone?), the stage is set to create a free-for-all of charlatans from ALL sides of the fence. Today, it sometimes seems that there are more charlatans that not, in way too many areas of life. This is not a healthy environment. Is the "science behind the medicine" (or any other field) sound? Well, Liveliest Crib in particular, just how is the lay person supposed to know that without advanced degrees in innumerable subjects? Welcome to America, where science was selectively censored by the Bush admin and Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor of JAMA claims that misleading research is often published in major medical journals and doctors are lending their names to it. (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSN1548527620080415). Maybe we can use the scientific method to find out which scientific methods were done scientifically? ! You can revel in the the purity of actual science done honestly and reported correctly and clearly. It is a joy when that happens. But, that perfect case scenario does not always happen. It might even be more theoretical than actual! (perish the thought!) We need to address the lack of HONESTY and transparency of the scientific method [i]as it is perceived/presented[/i] in our culture FIRST. Without the credibility of the "scientific method" as it is perceived/presented by the everyday person, who is getting more cynical by the minute, evidenced at the tip of the iceberg by the links I provided,[i] you will never disprove a Chopra or Oprah or anyone like them because the system used to disprove them is not credible[/i]. To be clear, I am not saying the scientific method is not credible. I am saying that dishonesty in the either the reporting, application, statistical methods, omission of data or somesuch contained in or derived from the scientific method, usually for financial gain, makes it extremely difficult to trust what is [i]presented[/i] as the "scientific method" and therefore any results that go along with it, and that that issue needs to be dealt with first, rather than lamenting all the "charlatans out there." I am not entirely stupid and I find it rather difficult to get to the bottom line of whatever the "real science" is, if I can get there at all. You are probably smarter than me, and most of the population too, and don't have this problem, but what about the rest of us? Are we just out of luck, Darwin? - Paolo Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:40:20 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7173 Like I said, there is rampant empirical and normative conflation. To wit, Paolo said, [quote]NO ONE has all the answers[/quote]Of course not. But such does not justify simply trying out some purported alternative to scientific medicine. Any profferred remedy can be subjected to scientific scrutiny to determine whether it works. It's roots in some ancient culture or supposedly "natural" origins are irrelevant. It has either been demonstrated to work under controlled conditions, or it has not. So, while no one has "all the answers," only science has a method for finding the answers to empirical claims like "eating this will cause your pain to subside." [quote]and "mainstream medicine" is hardly free of quackery and outright BS because of its "for profit venture" nature---where one cannot easily tell if the "for profit" comes before the "what works" part as long as the "what works" part is defined as public health and not more profit.[/quote] It's not that medicine is "mainstream" or "alternative." Those terms are not applicable here. Whether a remedy works is [b][i]independent from the motives of those who proffer it[/i][/b]. I will agree with one thing -- there is indeed money to be made through fraud. While some practitioners of scientific medicine probably engage in fraudulent practices, practitioners of some "alternative" brand of medicine are fraudulent by definition. In my home country, the U.S.A., we have enormous political and economic problems when it comes to creating new medicines and distributing health care in a fair and decent manner. Horrific problems. I know them first hand. But they're normative problems that require solutions at the political level. Whether a particular medicine actually does what its proponents say it does is a wholly separate issue -- an empirical one that will only be answered through the scientific method. [quote]If "mainstream medicine" could be trusted to be really for the people ABOVE for profit, it would be much harder for any "alternative medicine" to be credible.[/quote]Please. People so often mistrust scientific medicine because they don't understand it -- the complexities of the human body, the rocket science that is the invention of new molecules to combat disease, the side effects of medication. So, they look for the warm, smiling face of someone who offers a simplistic alternative, one claimed to be "natural" and "free of side effects." Wish thinking and placebo effects are enough to create repeat business. I won't argue that scientific medicine could use better PR, but the motives of its practitioners have nothing to do with whether the science behind the medicine is sound. If we want people to trust medicine based in science over superficially appealing, but lethal alternatives, we need to educate people about science. - Liveliest Crib Thu, 11 Jun 2009 16:17:57 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7168 You said: " See, that is the truth here folks... "mainstream medicine" is indeed a for profit venture, but the best way to make money is to do what works. Really? Mainstream medicine's best way to make money is to do what works? I guess that includes fraud and endangering the public health, that makes money. That would be "mainstream medicine" committing fraud and endangering the public health as a for profit motive. See http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/00484/ketek-data.html for just one example. NO ONE has all the answers and "mainstream medicine" is hardly free of quackery and outright BS because of its "for profit venture" nature---where one cannot easily tell if the "for profit" comes before the "what works" part as long as the "what works" part is defined as public health and not more profit. If "mainstream medicine" could be trusted to be really for the people ABOVE for profit, it would be much harder for any "alternative medicine" to be credible. - Paolo Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:01:49 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7148 If the major portion of humanity wasn't gullible there would not be skeptics' sites like this one for the minority. The human race may be slowly shedding itself of religion but it still flocks after priests (and priestesses). - bosshog Thu, 11 Jun 2009 02:27:20 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7136 [quote]EDITED BY JEFFWAGG: There's a reason the word is in quotes. :)[/quote]Yes, I was responding to Sceptico, so i blame him for the false steer. And now I remember why I didn't add it to my list of three "not quite totally correct bits" in your article. 8) BJ - BillyJoe Wed, 10 Jun 2009 18:46:18 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7127 Oprah does way too much actual harm to bestow such an amusingly trivial title in her name as: "Woo Woo Hoo Hoo". Any new category should reflect the actual massive and serious harm to people and infants that she is indirectly manifesting. - Michael K Gray Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:07:06 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7126 I read through most of the Newsweek article. I do not watch the Oprah Winfrey show as I have always found it to be, well, not real. Now, I would suggest that a new category of fake science be created to honor Ms. Winfrey for her contributions to the continued ignorance of her viewers - she should be in the category of "woo woo hoo hoo!" Recently, there was an MSNBC article that highlighed the finding that many vitamins and supplements were not actually pure or did not contain what was on the label, either in ingredients, dose or purity. Does Suzanee Somers even know if the synthetic hormones she buys (for big bucks I'm sure) are actually hormones? For all she kows, she is getting some purified (if she is lucky) water that has inert ingredients added to make the concoction seem real. It's too bad there is not some significantly popular and rich personality behind true science and medicine. This sordid affair is a testament to the gullibility of the masses. - DKrap Wed, 10 Jun 2009 13:07:14 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7125 [i]Her intention to improve women's lives on all fronts is so obvious as to be almost above criticism.[/i] Riiiiiiiiiiggggggghhhhhhttttt! Because it's the [i][b]intention[/b][/i] that makes one above criticism in this realm. [i]No, no, I loved my baby. That's why I fed him laundry detergent, because I heard from celebrities I trust that doing so makes relieves the pain of baby headaches. My intentions are good. I am beyond above criticism![/i] It's common, in my experience, for advocates of woo to be unable to distinguish between moral intentions and empirical reality. Why, for instance, do they insist on using homeopathy over medicine? Because the big pharmaceutical companies are evil, and just want to make money off of our potential addictions. Homeopaths are caring nurturers. If there are political and economic problems with our distribution of scientific medicine, it is reason to reform our political and economic systems, not abandon the science. Good intentions do not make woo woo real, and certainly does not make its purveyors like Oprah beyond criticism. - Liveliest Crib Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:55:45 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7123 [quote]Jeff, here is no such thing as an "allopathic doctor".[/quote]Hmmm, yes, I missed that one. Let's first take the splinters out of our own eyes. EDITED BY JEFFWAGG: There's a reason the word is in quotes. :) - BillyJoe Wed, 10 Jun 2009 11:29:25 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7118 "Does the most brilliant researcher in the world know why cancer sometimes spontaneously disappears? "-Huffington Post Yes, cancer does sometimes spontaneously disappear. It's called surgical excision. - stacyhead Wed, 10 Jun 2009 07:39:58 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7117 [quote]You can also go to the oprah.com site and submit a comment. The problem is, they demand your phone number. Can you trust them with it? Well, they hardly seem trustworthy to begin with, and their privacy policy didn’t convince me otherwise. But for skeptics who don’t mind the risk of receiving marketing calls, it’s another option to voice your displeasure.[/quote] If your phones are on the so-called National Do Not Call Registry you should be safe. Though that doesn't prevent them from using email/mail marketing or door-to-door sales. - Kuroyume Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:53:43 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7114 Jeff, here is no such thing as an "allopathic doctor". The term allopathic was just something the homeopaths made up to distinguish themselves from real doctors. - Skeptico Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:51:08 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7113 Someday I'd like to meet Mr. ChOPRAH's well-endowed sister, Deecup. - trawnajim Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:33:19 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7112 After all, the colossal target audience for a claptrap afternoon show like Ms. Winfrey's seemingly have mush for brains which explains why it's such a ratings winner. Desire reason? I suggest [i]Randi TV[/i]..... - Realitysage Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:20:41 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7111 You can also go to the oprah.com site and submit a comment. The problem is, they demand your phone number. Can you trust them with it? Well, they hardly seem trustworthy to begin with, and their privacy policy didn’t convince me otherwise. But for skeptics who don’t mind the risk of receiving marketing calls, it’s another option to voice your displeasure. - Rustylizard Wed, 10 Jun 2009 04:09:53 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7110 I read the Newsweek article and I think they were kind to Winfrey. The damage this woman does through her billion-dollar business is incalculable. I dropped Huffpost because of their uncritical, unreasonable stance on these issues, as I would and will any other so-called "authoritative" blog/news-site, etc. Thank you, Jeff. I don't agree with everything you've written throughout this blog but in this instance you are spot-on, in my opinion. - Michieux Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:46:02 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7109 What's the matter doc? I see you are now wearing eyeglasses. Did you exercises not work? http://www.tbyil.com/Deepak_Chopra_Eye_Exercises.htm Did you not follow the advice in SEEING DEEPLY written by your chum Dr. Roberto Kaplan? http://beyond2020vision.com/seeing On which "Deepak Chopra M.D., author of Quantum Healing, comments "The Power Behind Your Eyes is and important book that can help you create new vision for your life."" Come to think of it, you are not looking as good as some 63 year olds I know. Doctor heal thyself. :D - Gord_in_Toronto Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:35:23 +0100 http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/swift-blog/592-choprah.html#comment-7108 [quote]There is no alternative medicine. There is just medicine[/quote]More accurately, there is Evidence Based Medicine (EBM). Or Science Based Medicine (SBM) which is EBM + plausibility. "Conventional Medicine" also some problems with evidence (see below). [quote]fake acupuncture is just as effective as real acupuncture[/quote] [b]fake acupuncture is just as effective as real acupuncture???[/b];D That's like saying that a particular drug is as effective as the placebo it was tested against. Big Pharma would not get away with that. But there seems to be a different rule for AltMed. Really, this is just a dishonest conclusion from a study which, in fact, provides evidence for the null hypothesis that acupuncture does not work. What the conclusion should have read was [b]"Acupuncture no better than placebo" [/b] [quote]Not until European results revealed that lumpectomies were often just as effective did American surgeons question the staunch support of [radical] mastectomies." Guess what? That's what science does! It learns, and improves,[/quote](I think you meant [i]radical[/i] mastectomies) But "conventional medicine" indeed made a terrible mistake by initially adopting this procedure before actually conducting clinical trials to see whether such a radical prodcedure was necessary. Countless women were maimed and disfigured by this failure of "conventional medicine". regards, BillyJoe - BillyJoe Wed, 10 Jun 2009 03:19:10 +0100