Comments on: Mainstream Media’s Sub-Par Health Coverage, Part 2

By: BillyJoe

BillyJoe — Sat, 20 Mar 2010 03:43:16 +0000

….um, yes, obviously I knew that, otherwise I would not have made that comment.

By: edgar

edgar — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:59:54 +0000

Ped’s are considered primary care here.

By: BillyJoe

BillyJoe — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:55:02 +0000

“my one son developed a minor rash (molloscum contagiosum (sp?) ) and has seen the pediatrician.”]

Off topic, but…

This is one of the reasons why health care is so expensive in America. In Australia, a paediatrician would never get to see a case of molluscum contagiosum. You have to go through a GP to get a referral to a specialist and your GP would not refer you with such a trivial condition because he would be able to diagnose the rash and tell you all about it himself.

By: provaxmom

provaxmom — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 13:33:21 +0000

Sort of related……my one son developed a minor rash (molloscum contagiosum (sp?) ) and has seen the pediatrician. Last night I realized it was getting worse, so in true “warrior mom” fashion, I took to the internet. Among the sites that came up was the Mayo clinic site. For each health disease/disorder they list, they have a link for “alternative therapies”. I found that to be very disappointing. Mind you, when I clicked on it, it just told me that I needed to discuss all alternative remedies with my doctor, but I am disappointed that they would even give equal time and a link.

By: BillyJoe

BillyJoe — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:53:03 +0000

wertys,

“If bastions of EBM like Cochrane are not reliable on these topics, how on earth is a reporter supposed to get an unbiased view?”

By reading the “results” section and ignoring the “author’s conclusion” section.
…oh wait, you said reporter.

By: wertys

wertys — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:41:45 +0000

In the specific case of Reiki, it is even more problematic because the Cochrane reviews of Reiki appear to have been done by practising Reiki proponents, and they torture the syntax to generate barely defensible positive statements which I’m sure they are aware can then be freely quoted out of contex. The weighty reputation of Cochrane reviews has been recognized by sCAM artists and in many cases they are trying to buy in to the reviews and generate either an apparent lack of evidence for anything (concluding that nothing is helpful therefore you might as well try sCAM therapies) or spurious positive systematic reviews which bank on time-poor health professionals just reading the conclusion without checking the review itself.

If bastions of EBM like Cochrane are not reliable on these topics, how on earth is a reporter supposed to get an unbiased view?

By: Scott

Scott — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:30:18 +0000

The insistence on “balance” when the facts are firm seems to me to be related to the strong strain of anti-intellectualism in modern society, where not only are experts on a subject not trusted to know what they’re talking about, but are actually often considered more likely to be wrong because of their expertise.

Expecting reporters to be able to reliably evaluate the evidence to determine that reiki is sufficiently bogus to not deserve “balance” is a bit steep of a hill to climb, but precisely for that reason they need to trust the people who DO have the knowledge!

It would be very interesting to know whether there is indeed a causal link, and if so in which direction it goes.

By: Joe

Joe — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:26:52 +0000

At the bottom of Mitrano’s article you cite is a link to another that focusses on your comments:
http://www.somdnews.com/stories/02192010/indymor173133_32233.shtml