Feb 24 2010
Dr. Amy Tuteur has decided to leave Science-Based Medicine
The editors and crew at SBM have an announcement that needs to be made. This morning, Dr. Amy Tuteur tendered her resignation and will therefore no longer be a blogger at SBM. Some of you might already be aware of this development because Dr. Tuteur has already announced her decision on her own blog. That is why we considered it important to post an announcement here on SBM as soon as possible.
While we are sorry to see Dr. Tuteur go and wish her well in whatever future endeavors she decides to pursue, over the last several weeks it had become clear to both the editors of SBM and Dr. Tuteur herself that, although Dr. Tuteur had routinely been able to stimulate an unprecedented level of discussion regarding the issues we at SBM consider important, SBM has not been a good fit for her and she has not been a good fit for SBM. Over the last few days mutual efforts between the editors and Dr. Tuteur to resolve our differences came to an impasse. Unfortunately for all parties, that impasse appeared to be unresolvable and resulted in Dr. Tuteur’s decision to leave SBM.
As a result of Dr. Tuteur’s departure, we will be adjusting the posting schedule in order to cover her normal Thursday slot. Final decisions have not been made yet, but we expect that every weekday will continue to be covered, with at least one post per weekday.
167 Responses to “Dr. Amy Tuteur has decided to leave Science-Based Medicine”
I’m sad about this.
Amy Tuteur’s posts were not always careful and reasoned; they were often a mixture of defensible and undefensible statements and provoked a good deal of discussion in the comment threads as lay readers tried to tease out one from the other. I tried to work on the assumption that this mixture was deliberate and was having the desired effect. It was stimulating and engaging.
There is a limitation on this style in a blog directed at lay readers in that most lay blog readers cannot go to the medical library and look up seven articles on a subject to present them in the comment thread at 7:00 the next morning as an intern might at morning rounds. I appreciate that an attempt was made to vary the style of SBM blogging and further engage the readership. I hope that while this particular attempt may not have been a good fit, that SBM will continue to experiment with its format.
I’m sorry to see Dr. Tuteur go. I didn’t often agree with her but that, in fact, is why I most hate seeing her go. Reading the daily posts on SBM is always informative but rarely provocative. Comments tend to be of the pat-on-the-back sort or snipping over minutiae. Yes, we all belong to the same congregation. We’re all educated, articulate scientific types and forward thinking in the bargain. Hooray. It is nice, it is comfortable, but it doesn’t often advance the cause, it simply rallies the choir.
Dr. Amy waded fearlessly (recklessly?) into shark infested waters. People were challenged to think about why her positions were right or wrong; people were forced to do literature searches and dive in to support their positions. Perhaps most importantly people were forced to confront their own prejudices. I’d like to think that a lot of readers are better skeptics as a result of her time here.
I am sad to see Dr. Tuteur go, I enjoyed her posts, and the ensuing debates very much.
As for a replacement, can I nominate the pharmacist Scott Gavura from Science-Based Pharmacy?
I’m happy to see Dr Tuteur go since she seemed unwilling or unable to act like an ethical SBM blogger and I come here (and send people here) for critical science writing, honest skepticism and to see how people who are really passionate and interested in science, skepticism and SBM communicate about it. The internet is filled with cheap sensationalism, that’s not science writing even if it is a means to promote oneself. I would have been happier to see Dr Tuteur simply become an ethical SBM blogger and help educate the public about medical science, to have grown from being someone who sold medical advice over the internet and cynically sells products she railed about on SBM on her site to someone who is an example of why science is superior to woo and why it’s not a slave to Big Money.
If I want to simply argue with ideologues or read sensationalist diatribes, I’ll spend my time taking on the many sCAM promoters out there or read someone who’s actually a good writer too. (Generally I prefer rants to at least be humorous, otherwise you might as well be watching Fox News.) I find that the other bloggers here do a much better job of challenging people to confront their own prejudices and to consider the evidence in a rational manner. Not to mention they do a much better job of explaining the complexity of medicine and actually holding intelligent discussions. What can I say, I like my SBM to be science-oriented and not just sensationalism that pretends that sound and fury makes up for actual content and context. Sure some people find that boring but a lot of real science (and medicine) is kind of boring, slow and not very sensational if you don’t happen to be intrigued by that kind of thing.
Besides, those who miss Dr Tuteur can go read and interact with her at her own blog or website, or in the comments sections of many other bloggers where she seems to spend a lot of time promoting herself. She’s running a business, it’s not like she’s about to close up shop and disappear.
Actually, in my experience, the tone of SBM does “advance the cause” much more than the sort of polemic sensationalism that Dr Tuteur uses to promote herself. Most people like to think that their ideas are actually based in reality and supported by science, that’s why woo merchants use pseudoscience to sell their wares. If you’re going to challenge someone’s beliefs then calmly explaining the science and allowing the person to feel informed (rather than stupid or ignorant simply because they don’t know something yet) is much more effective. (Particularly if your talking out your own ass half the time.) I’ve used SBM posts to start to inform many people about vaccines and autism and other SBM topics and found it to be very effective. Dr Tuteur’s approach just makes people see science/medicine and pseudoscience/altmed as being competing ideologies. Sure it’s gratifying to rant about how stupid people are or make fun of ridiculous ideas sometimes but that’s not science, that’s venting.
Bummer.
IMO childbirth woo predisposes parents to embrace other dangerous woo like CAM and vaccine refusal. If we can dispel some of the myths surrounding childbirth, perhaps we can prevent some parents from falling into that vortex. I hope SBM will continue to occasionally focus on the topics Dr. Tuteur introduced.
I’m not sad, because the best place for Amy Tuteur is her own blog where the only standards she needs to meet are her own.
I do hope that the SBM editors can keep an eye out for another ob-gyn contributor to add to the team, because discussion on SBM in obstetrics and gynecology is very useful.
in the comments on the last post I read by her I was definitely turned off by her condescencion, arrogance, and repeated pleas for a seemingly infinite amount of flawless evidence from those who disagreed with her post (which seemed to be almost entirely based on (informed) opinion), while not bothering to cite nearly anything herself and not replying to valid and interesting speculations about evolutionary forces. While the opinions presented in her post did spark discussion, and though she did have some reasonable things to say, I would agree that her style definitely did not fit in with that which I have come to expect and appreciate from this site. I’m sure she’s a great doctor and has valuable things to add to discussions in her area of expertise (and an occassional guest article on an appropriate topic might be more fitting than a mandotory weekly article which might encourage her to write outside of her expertise), but I think this is a good decision.
Although I occasionally agreed with Dr. T’s post and I thoroughly enjoyed some of the discussions, I felt her style was too heavy on provocation and too light on evidence and reasoned discussion. That is not the reason I enjoy visiting SBM. I enjoy the thoughtful and in depth looks at how and why SBM is conducted. I have to admit a concern that some of Dr. T’s approach might undermine the credibility of the site.
I’m sure this has a lot to do with my personal taste. As a profound liberal, I still can not tolerate Micheal Moore.
I do agree with windriven and Alison that the challenge to dispute and discuss rather than sing with the choir was engaging and a real lesson (particularly for someone like me who has little opportunity for that kind of discourse in everyday life.) Perhaps that will be something to consider in choosing new contributors or topics.
What’s to be sad about? Amy has multiple blogs. I’m sure that any of you commenting there would improve the level of dialog. Perhaps if Amy had confined her posts to OB/GYN subjects she would not have excavated such a deep hole for herself. It was those topics on which she had no expertise and did not provide any reference citations that served as her achilles heel.
I am relieved. Thank you.
I agree on the importance of “dispute and discuss rather than sing with the choir” but either side of any topic should be supported with factual information and legitimate reference citations, or be clearly stated as personal opinion. Clarity of communication is key.
Fifi on effectiveness:
“Actually, in my experience, the tone of SBM does “advance the cause” much more than the sort of polemic sensationalism that Dr Tuteur uses to promote herself. … If you’re going to challenge someone’s beliefs then calmly explaining the science and allowing the person to feel informed (rather than stupid or ignorant simply because they don’t know something yet) is much more effective. … I’ve used SBM posts to start to inform many people about vaccines and autism and other SBM topics and found it to be very effective. Dr Tuteur’s approach just makes people see science/medicine and pseudoscience/altmed as being competing ideologies. ”
Yes, that has been my most important concern. I felt quite conflicted and hypocritical for enjoying engaging in Amy Tuteur’s comment threads, while not wanting to refer my woo-ier friends here for fear that they would just come away with the impression that science/medicine and pseudoscience/altmed are competing ideologies that they can simply choose between.
One way around that might be to have a Devil’s Advocate post where someone uses science (or appears to use science) to come to a controversial conclusion, or makes un-nuanced statements, and throws down the gauntlet with a challenge to “Discuss.” It would be clear that the post is to be treated as an exercise and the poster could use the comment thread as required to help clarify the difference between true science and pseudoscience, or where nuance is appropriate and where it is not.
I don’t know if this would be as effective in stimulating discussion as the combative approach/persona that Amy Tuteur used. (Probably not.) I’m pretty sure it would not be as effective in drawing out the nutcases for us all to see and be amazed by. (The Jew-baiting that surfaced in the circumcision thread might be routine for some of you, but the reminder was instructive for me.) But it might be a way to engage the readership in the science rather than simply demonstrating it.
Anyway, I laud the effort and it’s too bad it didn’t work out the way it had been hoped.
Interesting development, and
…SBM has not been a good fit for her and she has not been a good fit for SBM….”
pretty much says it all.
I wish her well, hope that SBM finds a new contributor, and hope that any lingering problems held by anyone will find themselves totally resolved.
Although, I too found Dr. Tuteur’s post to lack some of the vigorous self review, I have come to expect at SBM. I too appreciated the increased focus on Obstetrics and hope that a suitable replacement can be found. I think Windriven summarized it best.
I thnk most people have been respectful in their comments, however – Fifi – you might as well be wearing pom-poms and shooting off fireworks – the gloating is very childish. And you are a hypocrit for using the same inflammatory language you accuse Dr. Tuteur of using. I am not aware of any “unethical” behavior that Dr. Tuteur engaged in on SBM … that is a very serious and “sensationalistic” accusation.
This site is and should be a crucible in which extraneous fluff is burned away, leaving only well reasoned AND supported arguments.
I think it speaks well of the contributors and commenters at SBM that we endeavor to hold everybody to the same standards of evidence and logical argument, regardless of whether we perceive them to be “on our side”, or agree with the ideas being expressed. The discussion threads on her posts were indeed interesting and perhaps occasionally more worthwhile than the posts themselves.
I think we all could tell Dr. Tuteur was having a rough go of it in a very different context than she was accustomed to. I had hoped she would adapt to the environment and standards of argument here at SBM, though I felt she was not long for this blog. She had some interesting, if not well supported, things to say on subjects that are very ripe for attention by SBM.
We will be recruiting soon. I had meant to be trying to recruit in order to make our bench deeper for a while now, but February is an NIH grant submission deadline, meaning that the two or three months leading up to these deadlines have been ridiculously busy. My grants have been submitted now.
“I am not aware of any “unethical” behavior that Dr. Tuteur engaged in on SBM … that is a very serious and “sensationalistic” accusation.”
yes, I found Fifi to be gloating as well, however, in her defense, I take offense at Amy’s repeated shots at Johnson & Daviss integrity, and accusations that the deliberately used wrong data sets to be egregious. She had no evidence of this, and I called her on it. She refused to admit her mistake.
I found her posts to be full of half truths and deliberately misleading information.
The problem with Dr. Tuteur isn’t that I disagree with her on some issues, or that she rarely uses actual scientific evidence to make her position, or that she’s condescending, or her logical fallacies and simplistic thinking. Those are all fun to debate, and I’ll miss the thursday posts.
The problem is her complete lack of ethics. What first made her start wondering who this person was was her post “Midwives and the Assault on Scientific Evidence.” She didn’t make any exceptions for nurse midwives, but denigrated an entire medical field based on a few wackos. It’s like having a SBM endorsed post on here “Nurses and the Assault on Scientific Evidence.” It’s also interesting given the long history between obstetricians and midwives. The only midwife I know a little bit is on my soccer team, so it’s not personal for me. Yes, there are others out there who routinely denigrate obstetricians, and that needs to stop too
So I started poking around her blog and her open salon articles and found that she trolls parenting message boards looking for stillbirths to “call out” these recently grieving mothers publicly in order to support her point. She had often tens of comments on any media article entailing childbirth accusing midwives and mothers of being baby killers. She often posts sexually charged articles on open salon in order to garner hits, along with bashing anybody with a different opinion and calling it “debate.” She even apologized once on OS for being an “ahole” but nothing changed.
Therefore, I was not surprised to find out that she charges 4.95/14.95 for an email regarding, let’s be honest, medical advice (despite the disclaimer), doesn’t disclose her retirement on askdramy.com, and sells the very products she denigrates in her online store. I think she craves money and attention and will do anything for it, quite honestly.
So I’m glad SBM is taking a stand on this one (surprise, surprise!). Anybody is welcome to go out and argue with her on her own blog.
YAY.
Her style was not in keeping with the quality and level of discourse I too have come to expect (and recommend to others) at SBM.
It was odd that a writer here was having such trouble confusing an argumentative attitude with one of skepticism.
The ob/gyn topics were interesting, and I’m all for a good heated discussion, but the style(or lack thereof) left me distracted rather than educated. Some of her responses and arguments could have easily made it onto the ‘name that logical fallacy’ segment of the SGU.
As someone who is often not familiar with some of the topics that Amy discussed, I have to say that I learned substantially from her posts and the resulting discussion.
Admittedly, her tone may have been a bit more defensive/negative in response to criticism than you’d hope from a skeptical blogger but, she is, like the rest of us (though some might not qualify), human.
It was helpful (and is helpful) to have logical fallacies identified as many (for our benefit, often at Amy’s expense) of the comments did. There were times when the method of identification was somewhat condescending or negative – and I suggest, in a venue like this, it wasn’t ultimately beneficial.
In saying all that, however, I think that SBM benefits from being straight and sticking with the facts (unless otherwise identified). The discussions were educational but could take away from the true value of this site. I, too, would use it as a place to direct others and the regular “conflict” is not beneficial.
What makes Amy Tuteur on SBM different from Amy Tuteur on SOB (skepticalob.blogspot.com) is the commenters. I don’t want to be the only one objecting to her logic on her website, or the only one arguing that homeopathy is useless and unethical on naturalnews.com. The interesting part is less Amy herself than the discussions with other engaged commenters with a scientific bent. It’s the other commenters who make the discussions interesting; Amy merely provides lots of occasions for them. If there are no more Thursday debates on SBM, for instance, I’m going to miss micheleinmichigan who doesn’t comment as much on other threads.
Oh, and I also have to express thanks to SBM for not editing or deleting any negative comments and even letting this decision be commented upon. I think that fact speaks for itself what kind of a site SBM is.
In the interest of fairness, Fifi may be wearing pom poms, but so is Amy at her skeptical ob site where her comment on leaving sbm is “what a relief”.
Very kind of you, Alison. Sadly, the wide ranging discussions on Dr. T’s thread were more akin to my tangential nature. I feel guilty pulling comments off-topic on something as serious as vaccines and don’t have much to add to topics as out of my league as virology. (Although sometimes I can’t resist.)
While I understand that she was not routinely maintaining the tone intended for the blog, I hope that she will be invited to share her occasional well-reasoned critiques of recent developments. While she does prefer to be provocative, her blogs on obstetrics specifically (Homebirth Debate, then Skeptical OB) will occasionally have very interesting and informative analysis of important issues– such as her well-researched comparative analysis of fetal death rates with providers of various qualification levels, and her critiques of some of the really bad studies that are used by woo advocates to support their points.
Perhaps she could return as an occasional guest blogger or be linked to when she has a particularly good post up, thus not requiring her to produce a SBM piece every week yet still providing us with the information when she has the time to devote to it on her own schedule. In particular if a link method was used you could precede it by saying, it’s not the same tone as usual, but the points are good, or something similar.
Dr. T’s style did not fit here at SBM. This is not supposed to be an overtly political blog, but that’s what her posts sounded like. No amount of reason or evidence could convince her to qualify any of her absolutist statements. The most frustrating experience was debating her assertions that lifestyle doesn’t make much difference. There is abundant evidence for the importance of diet and exercise, but she couldn’t bring herself to admit it.
She wouldn’t ever give a millimeter on anything. If anyone presented undeniable evidence, she would ignore it.
I realize I tend to be somewhat holistic in my orientation, so I often have differences with the bloggers here. But most of them are able to admit it when the evidence obviously contradicts their statements.
Amy’s version on SOB:
“The sticking point was the lack of a moderation policy. Every comment thread spun out of control because certain people (almost all of whom came from here) were free to post garbage that they could never get away with on this site.
Interestingly, I rarely remove comments here (can’t remember the last time I did) and I almost never ban people, yet people are able to control their behavior because they know it could happen.”
http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-quit-sbm.html
Interesting. Completely in contrast to my previous comment.
Also, while you’re looking for another OB expert, you should look for a psychiatrist who’s willing to contribute! Never have I seen a field more filled with woo and unethical providers than psychiatry, and so many people fall for it. My partner’s psychiatrist (who, alas, is an attending physician, a Harvard med school professor, and sees individual patients in therapy thus could never do it) is constantly complaining about patients who expect him to put them under hypnosis or have been robbed blind by unethical therapists who take advantage of their mental state– and since he tends to only see severe, complicated cases, it’s especially heinous that anyone would take advantage of them like that.
While I agree that Dr. Tuteur’s posts were not as well referenced as the other contributors’ posts, I found them most enjoyable. They generated much discussion (not always constructive) and IMO, they were science based, even if they were not heavily evidence based.
She often provided her opinions, which were supported by reasonable scientific assumptions and/or evidence, in much the same way that Dr. Gorski, Dr. Novella, and Dr. Hall sometimes do.
In fact, I find it refreshing to not always have to read tons of references in addition to the post itself. So thank you, Dr. Tuteur, for your contributions. I also think this is a good time to address comment posting etiquette. Some of the things people said were downright nasty. SBM is no place for ad hominem attacks. Amy attracted the majority of these insults. To disagree with her or to demand references is your right as an SBM reader, but to insult because you have no other way of debating is pure idiocy.
I re-read her latest post here to make sure that I am correct in remembering how impressed I was by her clarity. No idea what is meant by a mutual agreement that she did not fit in (really none of my business either), but Amy was one of my favorite contributors here because it was very easy to understand her writing. Some authors here do ramble, and her style was immensely refreshing. Amy also consistently spent mucho time in the comment discussion–very admirable.
I will add her site to my News Reader. And though gender should not be the only reason why a writer should be invited here to contribute, it was mighty comforting to have another female in addition to Harriet and Val as part of the SBM writing stable.
Amy was unflinching in her presentation of science-based medicine, and she did it in her own inimitable style. I also regard that some of the negative reaction was because she pulls the rug under the so-called natural approach to child bearing.
It did seem there was an infusion of a more polemical and argumentative style with Dr Tauter. I enjoyed some of her posts and really feel there remains a need to discuss the woo and non scientific notions that are often advanced concerning pregnancy and child birth. I appreciate the confident and researched opinions of the medical professionals who post here. The confident assertions and cautious disclaimers seem appropriately based on available evidence and a conviction that science is the best avenue to inform medical practice. Amy’s confidence and argumentative style often appeared reactive and full of hubris based on strongly held opinion. While this may not have been the case it certainly was the appearance, and appearances do matter.
Dr. Tuteur’s post on circumcision was awful. She used straw-men, used the results of a small test study to advocate wide scale interventions (go acupuncture!), ignored the ethical issues of elective (parental) surgury without consent (the infant’s), and fell back on religious arguements when challenged in some of her replies.
I’ve read her other posts with much interest though and have learnt a lot. I can see how raising thorny issues in a combative manner opens up debate and makes medicine a more 3 dimensional subject.
It’s not science based medicine though. I wish her well, and hope she continues to stimulate debate in the future. Just not here. I come here to learn about what the evidence and the science says about the medicine I, or a loved one, may need, not lively debate on extrapolations, conjecture or opinion.
micheleinmichigan on commenting:
“Sadly, the wide ranging discussions on Dr. T’s thread were more akin to my tangential nature. I feel guilty pulling comments off-topic on something as serious as vaccines and don’t have much to add to topics as out of my league as virology.”
Exactly.
Sorry to see her go, but I am not surprised. She was consistently berated in the comments by people who simple had no logical position. OB and child care are two areas with an entrenched history of Woo, so while and active comment thread wasn’t a surprise, I did find it to be surprising at how many peoples responses to her posts boiled down to “Your just wrong cause I know better.”
For example:
Clearly some people here have an entrenched views on midwifes and refuse to look at any data she presented with a rational mind.
It is a very stark example of why there should be a moderated system in place. Ideally an active moderator who points out when people are falling back on logical fallacies, and can remove pope from posting under a specific article.
We have no plans to change our current commenting system.
Windriven said “Dr. Amy waded fearlessly (recklessly?) into shark infested waters” I would add “while relentlessly chumming”.
From Amy’s blog:
Of course, Amy is free to present her side of the story as much as she likes on her blog. For now, we are going to take the high road and not get into a “he-said-she-said” sort of exchange. However, since Amy has cited our moderation policy as a reason for her departure, I no longer see a reason not to confirm that one unresolvable issue was that Amy strongly favored a more heavily moderated commenting system, and Steve and I were very reluctant to change our commenting policy. But the disagreement over the commenting system was certainly not only the bone of contention that we could not resolve.
Other than this, our post announcing her departure is all we will have to say for now, although we reserve the right to change our minds depending on circumstances.
Some of Dr. Tuteur’s critics are guilty of two sins of their own:
(1) Responding to what they wanted to think she said rather than to what she actually said, and
(2) Offering personal criticism of the author instead of just criticizing the content and discussing the issues addressed in the post.
The comments are a valuable part of SBM, but they will be more valuable if they contain fewer straw men and ad hominems. I urge commenters to aspire to the same high standards they have come to expect from SBM authors.
I disagree with Amy’s stance (on her blog) that standards was not the issue for her departure. Her writing style on sbm did not meet minimal science writing standards.
Ha! So she does delete comments on her site. Explains a lot. If you can’t take the heat…
David Gorski on the high road:
I would not expect anything else.
I was simply intrigued that what I perceived to be stimulating and valuable comment threads seem to have been perceived by Amy Tuteur to be undisciplined garbage. Presumably the experience of posting and commenting regularly here was about as fun for her as posting and commenting regularly on the Age of Autism would be for me — that is, not at all. (In which case at least some of her inaccurate statements must have been sincere and not deliberate provocations.)
David Gorski on the high road:
“[W]e are going to take the high road and not get into a “he-said-she-said” sort of exchange.”
I would not expect anything else.
I was simply intrigued that what I perceived to be stimulating and valuable comment threads seem to have been perceived by Amy Tuteur to be undisciplined garbage. Presumably the experience of posting and commenting regularly here was about as fun for her as posting and commenting regularly on the Age of Autism would be for me — that is, not at all. (In which case at least some of her inaccurate statements must have been sincere and not deliberate provocations.)
Harriet I appreciate your points here, but I have to say that complying with your point number one was often difficult as Amy’s terse and provocative writing style without qualifiers often left me wondering what it was that she actually meant. As a medically trained person she would obviously know of the importance of qualifiers in communicating science, so I assumed she intentionally left them out, not for effect but because she had absolute black and white views. I decided the only way to deal with it, rather than reading between the lines (which I found to be fraught with the risk of personal prejudices) was to take her comments at face value. I think that regarding your number two point, criticizing her writing style is not a personal attack as writing style with regard to science and medical topics is extremely important for conveying information with clarity, accuracy and credibility. As I have said elsewhere, were Amy to make her posts labeled clearly as “opinion” then I have no problem with her style.
On moderation – In this setting, I would rather learn from being corrected by another commenter or contributor AND have others learn from my error than just have my post removed with a rebuke that it is too heated or off-topic (as I have seen on other sites/groups).
As Dr. H says I’m sure mistakes are made, but there always seems to be another poster willing to point out those mistakes. I think this respects the readers, giving them the ability to come to their own conclusions. And it has been a great exercise for me, ad hominems, straw men, confirmation bias, etc. All things I’ve learned about on this site (nope, they don’t teach it in Art School:). And it’s just more interesting to learn by demonstration (or demolition) sometimes.
Gorski says: “We have no plans to change our current commenting system.”
Indeed, and rightly so.
I retired before the internet age, so perhaps what I now say isn’t applicable to the fast, fast world of blogs, but it seems obvious that if the former contributor’s posts were properly edited they would not have fed so much criticism. This is not a personal comment but rather about the simple, necessary mechanics and steps one takes before publishing something.
Again, I am much more comfortable with pre-internet ways and perhaps it is acceptable now to “revise as you go” but I think it helps to get it as right the first time as one is able, especially given the noble goals of this site.
Hall requests: “I urge commenters to aspire to the same high standards they have come to expect from SBM authors.”
I commend this sentiment and note that such aspirations require some real work! One can have the very strongest of disagreements with an idea or proposition but need not bring someone else’s motives or mother into the discussion.
“Interestingly, I rarely remove comments here (can’t remember the last time I did) and I almost never ban people, yet people are able to control their behavior because they know it could happen.”
She claims to not delete comments often, yet, there are two deleted comments from that VERY entry. (And the second comment on her announcment post is hers – and it is responding to now deleted comments speculating on why she left SBM)
I think a skeptical psychiatrist would be a good addition.
I also want to thank David and Steven for not budging on the commenting policy. Censorship would lead your readers to mistrust the process. I do find irony here, Amy promotes moderation by editors, but then complains that readers are trying to censor her (in her last post). And of course Harriet is correct that we should all attempt to remain civil in our comments.
On my last comment, make that “lead your readers to develop mistrust in the process”.
I will miss some of Dr Tuteur’s posts, but will also say that she had her set feelings and stance, which she has a right to have. However, they did make her very inflexible regarding the points other people might have had that opposed her stand. There were many times I stayed out of comments because I didn’t have the time to argue my point time and time again, and she would not accept the information others gave.
I come to SBM to learn, to read, and to experience other ideas.
Thanks to Dr Gorski and Dr Novella for keeping the commenting policy unchanged.
Gotta add my voice to the support for staying firm on the more open commenting. It’s what sets places like SBM apart from places like, oh, Age of Autism. I’d hate for someone to feel the need to create a “Silenced by SBM” blog like I did for AoA.
I agree. Got any suggestions?
Amy Tuteur was harming the credibility of SBM.org. Her departure was overdue.
She seems have a distaste for reasoned argument. Her opinions were supported too frequently by oddly manipulated statistics or simple assertions.
I have no “rooting interest” in the issues she wrote about. My wife has had two drug-free births, but both were in a hospital and attended by doctors and nurses. I questioned quite a bit in the “natural” childbirth classes we took, so I’m not a flag-waver for the other side.
I root for the revelation of truth and facts, whatever direction they take. Amy Tuteur is clearly partial to a particular point of view and uses any means necessary to advance it, including brushing aside inconvenient facts or arguments.
That sort of writing is available everywhere. I come to SBM.org for more clear-minded assessments. Since Amy Tuteur’s arrival my visits to the site dropped dramatically — her self-righteous polemics were so tissue-thin that I didn’t understand why the editors were tacitly standing by her. I stopped sending friends here, lest they stumble upon one of her articles.
Glad that’s over.
1. I think the difficulty comes in when people are familiar with Amy’s other posts on other blogs, have more background about her stance than others. I think Amy attempted to be more nuanced and show more restraint on this blog, but her often polarizing position shone through to those who were familiar with it.
2. This is no doubt true
“I did find it to be surprising at how many peoples responses to her posts boiled down to “You['re] just wrong cause I know better.””
Really? Admittedly I am a relatively new reader of this blog (though I’ve been reading longer than I’ve been commenting), but I read several of her responses that boiled down to pretty much what you are attributing to her detractors. There may have been a disproportionate amount of ad hominem attacks in the comments, but that’s primarily because she wasn’t as good as Dr.’s Novella and Gorski (and others) at diffusing them with factual rebuttals. Often she responded in kind or, even worse, responded to factual, cited posts with ad hominems (or at least condescending dismissal), inviting more attacks on her.
I feel like some people are really not giving a lot of credit to commentors who disagreed with her tone and lack of citations by implying sexism or ideology as the primary motivator for disagreement. It’s telling that her primary supporters in this thread seem to be the I-don’t-know-much-about-science-but-she-makes-a-lot-of-sense crowd.
I wonder if Nicholas Fogelson over at academicobgyn.com might be a good choice, if he were interested in the gig.
And for gynaecology, I have always found Margaret Polaneczy to be a good read at TBTAM. I use her visual representations of absolute risk quite often! Of course, neither blogger may want to take on a regular SBM slot, and probably have enough on their plate writing their own blogs.
Whoever you get as a replacement, a thorough reading their existing oeuvre will probably tell you a lot of what you need to know about their suitability for SBM in advance of inviting them to contribute.
Oooo come on….. It only took me 59 Seconds to figure this one out.
Plonit, I emailed Dr. Gorski awhile back recommending Fogelson (as an addition to Dr. Tuteur though, didn’t realize then she was so unethical). He shares many of the same views as her, but uses evidence instead of ad hominems, hasty generalizations, anecdotes, and false causation to back up his points. I don’t always agree with him, but he’s fair at least.
I second the suggestion for a female. I like TBTAM too. It is a lot of extra work though.
I thought Amy’s posts were thought provoking. I hope we never come to the point where we all agree with each other.
Ben Goldacre – for skeptical psychiatry at its best.
Dr. Gorski, I am a psychiatric research coordinator. I am not an MD and it may be a silly idea to have a mere grunt of the medical system posting on such a popular blog…
However, I am a big time skeptic. I think psychiatry is a field that needs skepticism. As much as we all dislike NCCAM for wasting tax payer dollars, NIMH also tosses away tons of money on poorly designed studies. As this blog advocates, EBM is not the same thing as SBM.
Despite some of the flaws of the field, it is a fascinating subject. I just opened my own blog on wordpress to discuss various issues in psychiatry and medicine. I will also be starting medical school in the fall. My first post goes up on wordpress tonight on the subject of prayer and outcomes (more or less a take down of Dr. Oz advocating prayer in the OR during CABG operations). Let me know if you are interested in hearing more.
I will miss the discussions Dr. Tuteur’s posts engendered, because I love reading what the other commenters here have to say as much as reading SBM posts themselves.
Thus I am doubly thrilled that the commenting policy here will not change. That is part of what makes this site a must-read for me.
miketherattlesnake on the I-don’t-know-much-about-science-but-she-makes-a-lot-of-sense crowd:
“I feel like some people are really not giving a lot of credit to commentors who disagreed with her tone and lack of citations by implying sexism or ideology as the primary motivator for disagreement.”
Mike, I don’t understand your comment or what you are referring to. Amy Tuteur is sexist or commenters are sexist?
For myself, I secretly wondered if one of the reasons people responded so strongly to Amy Tuteur is that we are used to women being conciliatory. Which she is not.
While I’m happy to see Dr Tuteur go, I’m not doing jumping jacks or waving pompoms. Nor will I be giving her any more of my time and attention elsewhere. Like I’ve already said, I would have rather she learned from the experience and this was about standing up for SBM for me (science in medicine, not particularly the blog, as much as I appreciate that this blog exists and allows discussion). For my part, I was totally unaware of Dr Tuteur before she started blogging here and it was how her posts here just didn’t sit well in the context of SBM that I found problematic. When I started to look into who she was, all kinds of things turned up that seemed pretty unethical and antithetical to being an SBM blogger to me (the main one being selling medical advice over the internet, which is exactly the kind of quackery that SBM criticizes). But enough about that, I’m happy to move back to SBM again and anyone who thinks I’m a big meanie or was unfair is obviously entitled to their opinion.
I’m all for a truly skeptical OB or, even better, Gynecologist (or someone with practical experience working in both women’s health and obstetrics). I also second the vote for a skeptical pharmacist or pharmacologist. I’d also love to see a skeptical psychiatrist who was willing to take on both Big Pharma and psychiatric woo, it would be even better if it was balanced out by a cognitive scientist or psychologist. Some of my favorite pscyh/neuro bloggers are too ranty (and probably delve into culture a bit too much) for SBM but here are a few suggestions…
As suggestions for a skeptical psychiatrist…Dr Carlat
http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/
A skeptical neuroscientist…anonymous but maybe you can drag him out of the closet in the lab…
http://neuroskeptic.blogspot.com/
A skeptical psychologist…Scott Lilienfeld
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-skeptical-psychologist
I know I already threw my own hat in the ring (admittedly undeserved). But after dismounting my Theodore Roosevelt high horse, I got smacked in the face by the most obvious of answers.
When I think of skeptical psychiatrist…one man comes to mind. Arguably the founder of online medical skepticism, Dr. Stephen Barrett!
Women conciliatory? They haven’t met my wife.
Damn, Cde. Gorski. You call *me* a troll, but Dr. Tuteur trolled SBM a lot better than I could if I was even *trying* to troll. (~500 comments for a single post? DAMN. DAY-UMN. Girl’s got MAD skillz.)
Still, this post forces me to acknowledge one thing – you come down on the right side of openness of debate, and I will credit you (and the other SBMistas, regardless of our ideological differences) at the very least with not being her. The shortest path to an intellectually inbred and self-limiting consensus-cluster is to choke off debate, regardless of whether you like it. Executing critics – or its forum equivalent – is a wonderful way to eventually wind up a tin-plated Lysenko.
“vive liberte!”
-SD
Much as I am interested in ob and gyn issues, I’m relieved to see Dr. Amy resign. Her pugnacious style really didn’t fit at SBM, and it brought out the worst in the commenters. Some of her discussions were very informative, but they were undercut by her unwillingness to consider viewpoints other than her own.
However, though others sometimes resorted to ad hominum attacks, she always maintained a level of professionalism.
Well…now I will return to reading Thursday’s posts!
I too like the idea of a psychiatrist. Another idea, and this may be off the wall and I’m not sure how it’d work, but possibly a patient advocate?
Since it is a site about medicine, perhaps the patient’s perspective could have an intelligent skeptical representation. I’m afraid I don’t have anyone to nominate though. I suspect they’d have to be a pretty tough cookie and good nature-ed at that.
A nurse! You definitely need a skeptical nurse. And from talking to the nurses I know, there is a goldmine of questionable practices passed along within nursing culture.
I am relieved, and agree with Markf.
I am personally surrounded by homebirth woo and have been trying to sort fact from fiction for months. I admit I have a bias towards Dr Amy’s “side” of the fence. I *want* to believe what she is posting, but her style and frequent plays on statistics and jumbling of studies to suit her ends continuously pushed me away and turned me off.
I would absolutely love to have an OB on SBM that posts well reasoned, well cited, unaltered evidence and science without the snarky holier than thou attitude.
An excellent idea. Any suggestions?
I second the suggestion of Scott Lilienfeld. The fields of Psychology/Psychaitry are bursting at the seams with pseudoscience that needs addressing.
Hitting both psychiatry and nursing categories together, Zarathustra of Mental Nurse. http://www.mentalnurse.org.uk/2008/08/nursing-research-is-it-a-load-of-old-wibble/
Only the obvious one: Linda Rosa. But I’m sure there is a reason she’s not already on the roster here.
I would love to have a skeptical nurse blogging on SBM. There is a load of woo at my nursing school-instructors who are reiki practitioners, one who promotes iridology of all things!
Also, thank you for retaining the commenting policy. The comments are almost always as eduational as the posts.
On the nursing topic, what about Winkler County nurse Anne Mitchell? She did a nice job taking down Rolando Arafiles.
I will miss Dr Tuteurs posts because they were more of a mental challenge than a simple statement of evidence. Why even post on an article that is clearly supported by the evidence?
However I do appreciate SBM’s comment/moderator policy. If you wish to promote the scientific method, then you have to allow freedom of discussion, rather than filtering posts based on judgments of scientific validity. Personal attacks need to be limited, but there is a fine line between personal attacks, and criticizing scientific integrity or logic processes. I haven’t read much on SBM, and certainly don’t know the comments that may have been removed, but it appears you are doing a good job walking that fine line.
@ wales
“I would add “while relentlessly chumming”.”
I laughed out loud. So true.
For once SD actually made me laugh.
As a Psychiatric Mental Health NP, I would love to see a skeptical psychiatrist and/or nurse on board. Alas, I have no suggestions, but I will keep my nose to ground.
I was sorry to see her go until I read her own blog post. Upset because SBM doesn’t censor comments? That says it all about her level of maturity.
I join in on saying I’d love to see someone in psychiatry here in SBM and another OBGYN to talk about those issues in a more rigorous way.
Well it does cause problems here time from time. For example Dr. Novella had a problem last week with a woo basically gish galloping him on his blog.
wales said, “I also want to thank David and Steven for not budging on the commenting policy. Censorship would lead your readers to mistrust the process. I do find irony here, Amy promotes moderation by editors, but then complains that readers are trying to censor her (in her last post). And of course Harriet is correct that we should all attempt to remain civil in our comments.”
Second that! And second contributions from psychiatry and nursing practitioners.
I apologize for my part in the fiasco. I have great difficulty separating what I have known from Amy Tuteur on her own websites and comments on other blogs over the past year, and the few articles she wrote here.
In the future I will try to stick to the topic alone.
I’m sorry to see her go.
It did seem to be headed that way, unfortunately.
From the start there was what I thought was a ‘who is this new girl that is given time on my favourite blog? and about women’s issues, ew. childbirth, yuck. circumcision, ouch!’ attitude.
I hope the next new contributer(s) will be welcomed with slightly more open arms.
Jerry – “From the start there was what I thought was a ‘who is this new girl that is given time on my favourite blog? and about women’s issues, ew. childbirth, yuck. circumcision, ouch!’ attitude.”
Are you sure you’re not projecting? And who are you calling a “girl”? There seems to be a pretty unanimous call for another more appropriate SBM Ob/Gyn to replace her, particularly from most of us who were commenting. Besides, circumcision is hardly a women’s issue since we’re not the ones with penises. The male doctors here also address women’s issues (abortion and if it’s related to breast cancer risk, for instance) and I don’t see that as being problematic…when we’re talking about science and it’s a rational discussion and not driven by ideology or bias, it doesn’t really matter who’s presenting the evidence.
What about a skeptical homeopath?
Besides being an oxymoron, wouldn’t combining skepticism with homeopathy rend the fabric of space-tiime?
haha I suppose
Maybe not such an oxymoron. Dr. Edzard Ernst and Dr. Willem Betz are both (former) homeopaths who are now active skeptics highly critical of homeopathy as well as other forms of CAM.
I would second the nomination of Dr Fogelson if he is interested and available.
I would be very pleased to see a good, skeptical statistician join the ranks to complement the medical expertise of the other contributors. Fortunately, it often doesn’t take much intellectual effort to expose basic flaws in studies advocating so-called “Complementary and Alternative Medicine”. To the credit of the editorial staff of this blog, it would be tough for a statistician to improve SBM because the current staff already do a good job at keeping the blog analyses sound. That being said, a statistician might offer better insight on more subtle issues when evaluating more complicated studies. While doctors spend their careers studying human disease, statisticians devote their life’s study to developing statistical methodologies and algorithms as well as thinking in the abstract about variables, populations, densities, risk minimization, regression, and prediction. Doctors already collaborate with statisticians at major medical universities to help design experiments more rigorously, monitor their sound execution, and actively participate in analyzing the data and formulate findings. Their contributions help maintain the integrity of scientific inquiry and this leads to more definitive discovery of novel medical science. Employing their expertise on this blog might offer more authoritative statistical skepticism.
Just a thought,
Damian
A statistician would be a great idea!
Dr Tuteur’s position as a blogger on SBM clearly became untenable after her last post in which she wrote about beliefs that romanticize life prior to modern times. Despite a fairly uncontroversial topic for a sceptical website, the post generated huge volumes of comments, mostly by a small group of commenters. Some were fair, but many were extremely critical, not related to what she said and held her to standards not required from other bloggers. The comments then degenerated to a sustained personal attack, including insinuation about her motives as a blogger, her skills as a doctor, etc etc. I found it thoroughly distasteful. As a long time lurker, but very infrequent commenter, I was motivated to delurk and comment here.
If Dr Tuteur couldn’t write about a topic like this without the comments going in this direction, either she had to resign or SBM had to sack her.
So what now for SBM? The group of commenters who appeared to run a vociferous campaign against Dr Tuteur have got their way. Their behaviour would have been called bullying if it occurred in the workplace. Even now she has quit, some continue to gloat.
The SBM website title says: Exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine. But is that really the case? Dr Tuteur explored controversial issues on SBM and lasted about 3 months. How long will the next person who explores these issues last, or will they just not venture into controversial areas?
Reviewer 3, read on Amy Tuteurs blogs for a while, check the archives and also review her Ask Dr Amy website and then come back and tell us that she was an excellent choice to write here at SBM.
When I commented on Amy Tuteurs articles I always tried to comment on the topic itself, but recently slipped into commenting on her bias, ethics, and credibility as the topic shifted there. It was never my intention to force her removal/resignation. I was confident that she’d end up leaving SBM anyway because of the quality of her posts and the critiques they attract, but just didn’t anticipate that it would take only 3 months to happen.
And I do hold other SBM bloggers to the same standards.
Of course, the key word here is “former,” is it not?
I sort of enjoyed reading Amy’s posts and comments while she was here, but I probably won’t miss slogging through 500 comments to her articles now that she is gone.
I agree with Harriet that posters read a lot into her posts that simply was not there, and I think I demonstrated that with her summary of CAM as useless, particulary in reference to herbal treatments where she readily agreed with all the qualifiers that I offered.
I think the three second grab comments are fine, but there also needs to be some more in-depth analysis and references which Amy did not feel the need to provide. But I also think some of the attacks on her were over the top and unnecessary. It would have been better for her to do a “no comment” on those.
I do not agree with Amy that there should be moderation.
I have given up commentating on altmed blogs because, no matter how respectful you are, once they catch wind of where you are heading with your line of reasoning, you get moderated and the antivax sympathiser (as a frustrating recent example) gets the last say.
*warning* shameless self promotion to follow…
just launched my own blog, sort of in the spirit of SBM. not sure if any of you are interested, but if you are:
http://dfreedm.wordpress.com/
“I agree with Harriet that posters read a lot into her posts that simply was not there, and I think I demonstrated that with her summary of CAM as useless, particulary in reference to herbal treatments where she readily agreed with all the qualifiers that I offered.”
What you and she don’t seem to realize is that there is a continuum of belief about anything. Childbirth is from mandatory elective c-section all the way to unattended homebirth. With chiropractic, there is belief all the way from nothing in chiropractic care that is useful to chiropractor can cure cancer With alt med, there is “none of it works” to “all of it works” with many many people in between. That’s why qualifiers matter. Somehow, hundreds of people didn’t feel attacked or simplified by Dr. Hall’s posts on the same subjects. I wonder why that is.
I don’t believe for a second that I was twisting anything she said, but she could have clarified instead of flying off the handle. And no, I wasn’t kind to her after awhile, but she continually made ad hominem attacks not only on midwives, natural childbirthers, many different researchers in several areas unrelated to her expertise, but also on anybody who dared disagreed with her in the comments section. Many commenters have mentioned how condescending she is, so it’s hardly just me. Eventually, yes, I got sick of it, and I probably should have taken the high road. She also opened herself up to questioning her authority and experience as a doctor when she constantly USED that fact as support of her argument, instead of research or links.
So it’s kind of an agree to disagree situation. Some people prefer her kind of style and polemic.
Oh, and the funny thing is that Dr. Tuteur PERSONALLY attacked both plonit and Alex Knapp, despite the fact that neither one ever commented on her authority. And nobody defended them against Dr. Tuteur. It goes both ways. I think most people (not everybody) recognize that the ad hominems went both ways.
This is not authority based medicine.
@reviewer 3
That post was incredibly sloppy. She was posting way outside of her area of expertise, misrepresenting statistical and evolutionary plausabilities as outright facts, and making conclusions above and beyond what she had evidence to support and she then ignored and insulted those that pointed that out with contrary evidence. The article would have made an ok opinion piece on another site, but it did not fit in with the content here.
Again, I have nothing against her really, but you’re unfairly maligning the people who disagreed with her.
A wish-list of ob-gyn topics (from a balanced, level-headed ob-gyn contributor)
- Intermittent vs continuous fetal monitoring
- Umbilical cord clamping
- Different positions for giving birth
- Waterbirth
- Effects of pharmacological pain relief on the mother, baby and birth process
- Non-pharmacological pain relief in labour
- Safety of homebirth in the US and other countries
- Differences in midwifery education worldwide
- Differences between midwifery and ob-gyn care
- Episiotomy
- New birth technology
- Scams about fertility
- Scams about treating gynecological issues
These are general, but would love to see where a new ob-gyn contributor would go with those. Women could really benefit from good discussions of these topics to help make choices in their care.
And forgot to mention
- Coached pushing
- Managed 3rd stage of labour
I second StatlerWaldorf – get a statistician type.
It can be armor defending you from error – you folks are occasionally missing the important fudges in the science papers, or picking on the wrong problems in the CAM papers. Further it might lead to more bashing of crappy SBM, rather than just more CAM-bashing. CAM’s not a dead horse, but putting the lens on ourselves more often would be good.
Short list:
Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes. Heroic work. I hope they found the Journal of Forensic Bioinformatics instead though, where fudgers are ruthlessly grilled.
David Ransohoff is an MD, but kicks ass.
John Ioannides, also an MD, astonishingly.
Yes, I’m smoking – they don’t blog, and I know of no good nerd bloggers out there, perhaps because it’s near-suicidal to be too critical about what great scientists write. We just whisper to each other, like cowards do, and permit wickedness to persist.
Admittedly, I have a clear bias here. You need a good epidemiologist with strong statistical skills.
As one, I often find myself frustrated by posts because I find that the authors do not seem to understand the nuance of epi and of studies themselves. I often get the impression here, that it have to be RCT or it is not valid, and that is simply not true.
While this blog as certainly led me to appreciate the difference between SBM and EBM, often what studies themselves show is evidence. It may not be compelling, and it may not be clear, and it may in fact raise more questions that it answers….But that is the essence of the scientific process is it not?
Epidemiologist.
stat!
Zoe, “I don’t believe for a second that I was twisting anything she said, but she could have clarified instead of flying off the handle.”
Well, Zoe, you certainly twisted what I said. You accused me of having a hate list. Not only were you very wrong, your accusation was insulting and painful and I think that it revealed more about you and your own prejudices than about me.
You and most of the people launching personal attacks on Amy are anonymous cyber dwellers. I identify myself, and anyone who has followed my public comments or read my webpage knows that I do not hate nurses, midwives or people with BA degrees. They also know how insulting and painful your accusation was since I am a facially disfigured 67 year old woman who was disfigured by an MD at the age of 15 and has been the target of bigots and prejudiced people all her adult life as in denied jobs and apartments, thrown out of a pension (boarding house), called names by strangers in the street, etc. I have as a result gone out of my way to avoid ever doing that to any other group of people.
I’m sorry. I didn’t want to have to make such a strong emotional statement publicly. I don’t blame Zoe or anyone else who has made personal attacks on me or others because for the most part I don’t think you intended to do it. I think you have all been carried away by your own emotions and personal biases while being completely unaware of it. And Zoe is not the only anonymous person to attack me personally here. Wales, who knows zilch about what a water commissioner does in the US, had claimed that I am incompetent in that job.
IMO Reviewer 3 stated exactly what has taken place here with Amy and a small group of very vocal, articulate, mostly anonymous commenters.
To me there are two very sad things here. First, that the people involved in the continuous personal attacks are acting so self righteous, holding themselves up as bastions of reason, science and skepticism instead of admitting even to themselves that they acted like a group of biased bullies. I wouldn’t be surprised if none of them had had the guts to do it without the support of the others. Second, I think that a moderator should censor anyone who makes a personal attack.
I don’t think this forum is the place to continue this discussion, but if I get angry enough I might do it here. Anyone who wants to speak privately, please contact me: rosemary@rosemaryjacobs.com
STATISTICIAN!!!!
I study statistics (so of course I’m not biased towards it
), but even scientists and medical professionals (and me) need a better understanding of how to interpret results and understand probability.
No, I don’t have any suggestions for who should do it.
“Further it might lead to more bashing of crappy SBM, rather than just more CAM-bashing. ”
Yes, that’s my thing. SBM has btdt with acupuncture, chiro, and homeopathy. I’d like to see more on herbal treatments and supplements (vitamin d or c) (if there are any good ones, I don’t know). But mostly, on the science/evidence behind conventional medicine, because that’s what I’ll be using when I get sick.
Really?
And how do you define a “personal attack”? It’s not as straightforward as you seem to think. Take it from someone who’s moderated elsewhere.
I thought of this before and even had someone in mind. Unfortunately that person appears to have given up blogging.
I fully support this latest development. Dr. Tuteur was the only poster here that I could not respect. I felt she did not accept criticism or respond to it with any sort of decency.
zoe – “I’d like to see more on herbal treatments and supplements (vitamin d or c) (if there are any good ones, I don’t know). But mostly, on the science/evidence behind conventional medicine, because that’s what I’ll be using when I get sick.”
I agree. How about someone who could discuss sports medicine or nutrition from an SBM standpoint instead of an ideological or “common sense fallacy” one? This is one of the biggest crossover woo areas that exists (partly because there’s so much money to be made by pushing woo for so many people – food industry, Big Sup of course, gyms, naturopaths, and even Big Pharma, and partly because it’s part of everyone’s mundane life). It’s also the area that often sucks people into total woo (since neither exercise nor nutrition are actually woo in and of themselves) and where pseudoscience flourishes and starts to encroach on medicine. Stripping away the ideology and woo from these topics would be doing a huge public service and, I’d suspect, gain you a huge audience.
“David Gorskion 25 Feb 2010 at 9:46 am
STATISTICIAN!!!!
I thought of this before and even had someone in mind. Unfortunately that person appears to have given up blogging.”
Are you speaking of EpiWonk?
Goodness,
I am in love!..I wandered over to Epiwonk…..
Maybe he/she would be interested in writing the occasional article, instead of maintaining a whole blog!
STATISTICIAN!!!!
Yes, that’s a good idea! I am always dismayed at how badly statistics and research methods are understood, sometimes even by scientists, and often by medical practitioners. Determining causation can be extremely tricky, often impossible, and yet we’re always seeing confident claims based only on associations.
I did not get the impression that Amy Tuteur was very competent in this area. When you only look at the surface of data, you can see what you prefer to see. If you are interested in unbiased reality, on the other hand, you have to dig deep and think hard.
And after all that work, you often find there is no clear answer.
Dr. T has a particular world view, where modern science and technology and medicine are all-good, and nature is all-bad. I tried to argue that there are pros and cons for each.
She strongly denied the importance of lifestyle even though we have good evidence that it does matter. But in her worldview, good health depends entirely on modern medicine and luck. How you treat your body is inconsequential.
As silly as that sounds, I did not imagine her saying it, and I could find the exact quotes. Dr. T could not acknowledge that we have a nature that evolved over eons and that if we want to be healthy, we have to conform to that nature to some extent.
Dr. T is not alone. She represents an ideological group that is prevalent today.
I certainly apologize, then Rosemary. I don’t remember the exact circumstances, but I think I said that I had the wrong impression from your post about nurses promoting woo, and that I was mistaken. The last thing I want to do is intentionally hurt anybody.
I do however see Dr. Tuteur as a blogosphere bully, and it seems everywhere she goes, people pick up on that.
bluedevilRA – Nice first blog. Dr Oz and Oprah have certainly been the conduit that’s legitimized a lot of pseudoscience and woo – from promoting the kind of pseudoscience you call Oz out on to Opraph’s promotion of The Secret. It certainly doesn’t help SBM when actual doctors get involved in promoting woo or do unethical things (intentionally or via confirmation bias or ignorance).
Well, I’m sad to see her go, but I can read her post on her blog. I’m a mother of a young child, and don’t spend much time on the computer, so was thrilled when a skeptical OB/GYN joined the only blog I follow (as throughout my pregnancy I felt bombarded by scam, pseudoscience and all things woo). I didn’t always agree with the perspective or evaluation Dr. Tuteur took of the literature, but felt (semi) educated enough to take her presentation and incorporate it into my own knowledge and go look for more if something was lacking.
I hope SBM doesn’t get into a he-said-she said, but it seems it already is going that way (although the teenage girl inside me salivates at gossip). Her posts did generate outrageous discussion that anyone with half a life did not have time to read (or maybe it’s just because I’m a slow reader), but I agree with SBM’s stance of little moderation; which leaves people like me usually avoiding the comments because I don’t have time to wade through such negative and often off-topic attacks. Open is better, but it seems to be serving a few of the constant posters to repeat their points endlessly. But that’s the price for free and open. Looking forward to the new addition to the blog! I hope you can continue some parenting/women/childbirth topics.
A statistician would be a good addition to SBM, but a research methodologist might be even better. How about R. Barker Bausell, the author of “Snake Oil Science”?
I feel so conflicted.
I commented a lot, and I challenged Dr Tuteur when I felt her logic didn’t hold together, so I obviously recognise myself when people refer to a small group of bullies who drove her out.
When she first started, I just thought she was a poor writer. I thought her writing devalued what the brand of SBM meant to me without adding anything, and I said so. When I thought she could improve her writing and strengthen her contribution to SBM, I pointed it out.
Later someone (Zoe?) posted a link to a Salon thread where Dr Tuteur explained that she used a deliberately provocative style in order to save lives and didn’t care whether she was liked or not. In the Salon thread she named Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter as model communicators who she aspired to emulate. This made sense of her writing style, though it still didn’t explain why she thought a deliberate poke-the-wasps’-nest approach furthered rational examination of facts. Further, by publicly stating that her goal was to provoke and that she didn’t care whether she was liked — and also when she stated in an SBM thread that she measured the success of a post by the length of the comment thread it generated — she absolved commenters of a certain inhibition. You know how they say that arguing with a teenager is like wrestling with a pig: you both get covered in mud and the pig likes it. Well, I thought she was saying she liked it. If I didn’t mind getting covered in mud, she was game to wrestle. Guess what: I could use the exercise and I took her up on it.
A lightbulb went off for me in the circumcision thread, where I did a lot of research (for someone who is not in school and has no particular interest in circumcision) and disputed a lot of commenters. (In this thread I was ultimately able to make a link between evidence that circumcision reduced HIV transmission in adult Kenyan and Ugandan men to support for routine neonatal circumcision of Kenyan and Ugandan boys, which was part way to Amy’s link to support for routine neonatal circumcision of US boys. So while I never understood what exactly she wanted from the APA or why, I was not arguing against neonatal circumcision.) At the end of that thread I said the following: “Interestingly, I’ve learned a huge amount following this discussion. I think Amy might have been a great classroom teacher (she was a clinical teacher), throwing out obnoxious, vague, un-nuanced and unsupported statements and motivating angry students to write thoroughly documented research papers. I do think I could have learned as much from a more disciplined discussion following a more complete, nuanced post, however; and I’m quite sure that I don’t want to have to write a term paper to learn something from a blog post.” At that point I decided that her provocative style was a deliberate andragogical strategy. If she was offering study classes on the internet, I was taking them.
And now she has been driven off the blog by attacks from mean commenters. Which presumably is me. Because I challenged her. But was I really supposed to know that someone who said she wanted to be the Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh of SBM didn’t want to be challenged? Was I really supposed to think that when someone who deliberately used a provocative style to educate said something that didn’t make obvious sense, that I wasn’t supposed to notice or ask? And when someone posts on the internet that they deliberately use a provocative strategy to rack up comments, is it really a personal attack on them to observe that they deliberately use a provocative strategy to rack up comments?
I don’t know what to think. I’m not worried about Amy Tuteur herself, but I feel like I’ve made a mess in an environment I value.
Obviously for whatever reason, Amy Tuteur and SBM were not a good fit and the collaboration didn’t last. That’s not about me. And some people are completely uncomfortable with any display of conflict, even playful sparring between friends, and these people would presumably feel distressed by commenters challenging Dr Tuteur even if she did like it.
But I am feeling conflicted.
“Harriet Hall on 24 Feb 2010 at 1:28 pm
Some of Dr. Tuteur’s critics are guilty of two sins of their own:
(1) Responding to what they wanted to think she said rather than to what she actually said, and
(2) Offering personal criticism of the author instead of just criticizing the content and discussing the issues addressed in the post. ”
Dr H. orginally I agreed with this comment. In fact while Dr. T was posting here I abstained from looking at her blog so as not to skew my opinion of her articles. Out of curiosity, yesterday, I goggled her blog and came across her post and follow-up comments on Down Syndrome Testing. As the parent of a child with a craniofacial and hearing difference, I had a very gut level emotional reaction to the post and particularly her and other’s follow-up comments (apparently approved by her, since she moderates). Best I not say more.
This bring me to the question of accountability or consistency of persona or writings in the blog environment. When a blogger is posting on two sites, particularly under the same name
Is it realistic to expect that some readers will not take their experience from what they know of the poster’s views on the first site and use it to interpret their reading on another site?
That is to say if a restaurateur hires a chef with a reputation for serving poor quality meat is it realistic for them to expect their patrons approach the sausage with an open mind?
As to personal criticism. I generally prefer and try to stick to a critique of the article. But when I see someone who’s behavior is truly out of line, unacceptable or hurtful. I will make a personal criticism. I feel it’s my duty as (you know) a human being. I view it as the blogs editor’s right to moderate or delete that criticism if they see fit.
Rosemary, you’ve put me on the spot, eliciting sympathy and then accusing me of personal attack. I will try to thread the needle here but I suspect someone (and I think I know who) will use my comments as an excuse for further “attack” or criticism. So be it, c’est la vie. The reason I bother to comment at all is to second Dr. G’s cogent point about the subjectivity of personal attack and to reiterate my support for open comments. The perception of personal attack is often (usually?) a subjective one. I know nothing about you (except what you have revealed here) and I do not intend to find your website to learn more. You have disclosed more than I wanted to know. You are twisting my words as well (pot meet kettle, etc.), if you interpret anything I have said to indicate that you are incompetent at your job. How could I possibly make that statement knowing nothing about you or your level of effectiveness at your job? If I recall correctly, I think I have criticized you for minimizing the potential health risks posed by the increasing number and volume of industrial chemicals found in tap water.
You claim to take the moral high ground by not attacking others, yet do so in this very post. Either you think attack is justified because you believe you have been attacked (vengeance), or you don’t perceive your own comments as attacks (subjectivity). See how quickly the concept of “personal attack” becomes circular and subjective? I try to confine my criticisms to situations of factual error and reflexive dismissal of relevant fact. I have had my head handed to me many times on this site, sometimes justifiably so and often not, especially when it comes to generalized labels. I try not to engage in tit for tat on a personal and emotional level. Tit for tat on in intellectual level is another story.
As for the benefits of anonymity, what anonymity does is level the playing field. We can all discuss matters as disembodied minds with ideas, without concern for our physical appearance. Why you have intentionally and explicitly brought your physical appearance into one of the few arenas where you could have remained free from that burden is a mystery to me. I do feel sympathy for your unfortunate experience and what must be a difficult life. There are plenty of other websites that serve as venues for those types of discussions. Good luck to you.
Yep.
For the skeptical midwifery or ob/gyn blogger, when you recruit one:
Diet in pregnancy – ranging from the obviously bogus Brewer diet, through to mainstream govt. endorsed advice on foods to avoid, which could probably do with more scrutiny.
How about a slightly different twist on a member…someone with Regulatory experience who can discuss things such as the FDA, MHRA and EMEA?
If so, I will gladly volunteer my services and can provide a CV on request.
Oh, and as an attorney, I have thick skin
>she named Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh and Anne Coulter as model >communicators who she aspired to emulate.
If that is true, it explains why I hated her posts. That style of communicating can get you lots of attention and make you rick and famous (if you also happen to be entertaining, which Dr. T is not). But it is exactly the opposite of what we would like to see in scientific research. Actually, it’s the opposite of what I like to see in political discourse, as well as science.
Basically, I can’t stand to see that kind of over-simplification and distortion. For me, being a skeptic means watching out for that kind of deceptive persuasion.
If Dr. T really did name those three as her communication role models, then she is exactly what I thought — an aspiring ideological leader. Which is the opposite of a skeptical scientist.
And it is very strange that some of the bloggers here, such as Harriet Hall, could not see it.
Perhaps one of the Reveres on Effect Measure could add insight regarding statistics, epidemiology, and public health.
Revere would have to be willing to blog under his real name.
Thanks Fifi for the kind words! I was glad to see that someone checked it out. I’m always happy to hear from experienced SBMers. Dr. Oz was an easy target, but I didn’t want to make my first post too hard on myself
Billyjoe: “The bold assertions: “there is not a jot of evidence” and “bogus treatments” are fine because they are true and there is evidence to back them up, but if you have to stick strictly with what the evidence says, it confines you to making statements that run into a long paragraphs of explanations and qualifications. At the end, few are still listening and fewer still will get the message.”
====================================
The Amy episode has been a tragic waste of everyone’s time if no one learns anything from it.
I think we SHOULD “stick strictly to what the evidence says” although modes of expression will inevitably depend to some extent upon who you are talking to.
On this very blog many have expressed frustration that people and institutions don’t seem to listen to us. It is also my personal experience that talking down to believers or to those unsure what to believe. using shorthand modes of expression that are commonplace within scientific circles but less readily understood outside them, is the surest way to find an instant argument, a loss of respect, and much heat without light.
Thus “not one jot of evidence” can simply expand to “no good evidence and a lot of improbability to claims that it does anything beyond placebo”.
It’s clumsy, and it actually adds up to “no evidence” depending on the precise claim, but it says precisely what you mean. It has the added benefit of warning others that you are been in this kind of debate before, and are ready to argue out the evidence should they should want to divert debate into whether anecdotal experiences and a few unverified weak studies represent “one jot”, as I am sure BCA lawyers will.
The thing is that just about everyone knows someone who swears by homeopathic treatments or has heard of studies that supposedly confirm their activity. So what dickhead comes along saying to someone like that, who wouldn’t know a scientific study if it bit them on the ass, baldly saying there is “no evidence”, or “not one jot of it”?
We cannot force people to think our way merely with the power of our words and definitely not if also seeming to be wielding a delusional sense of having authority over what people should believe. The best we can do is explain why WE think the way we do. Lay it out for them gently and very, very patiently so that they can make up their own minds.
“David Gorski on 25 Feb 2010 at 2:10 pm
Revere would have to be willing to blog under his real name.”
Surely no pseudonymous blogger would be willing to do that!
Maybe some totally different blogger that just happens to have a similar blogging style to Revere would be interested? I swear I’ve seen that done somewhere before.
I don’t have anyone in mind, but I would love to see the next contributor be a clinical geneticist. The field of genetics is interesting and is really starting to work its way into everyday medicine, and I’d love to see more genetics stories here. After all, it is the REAL individualized medicine.
Another suggestion would be a good science-based DO. I’d love to see how a skeptical Doctor of Osteopathy evaluates the current level of woo in some DO schools, as well as some of the claims of the American Osteopathic Association.
Indeed.
I second Linda Rosa.
Jean Mercer (http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/child-myths) might be a good choice, but she’s a psychologist not a psychiatrist.
I’ve read without commenting in the past. But I’ll speak up today to say that Dr. Tuteur’s departure is a relief. It’s a good day for credibility and respect, I think.
I second the wish list of OB/GYN-related topics for SBM suggested by StatlerWaldorf. When one talks to pregnant women who are actively seeking to educate themselves on (read: make sense of) optimal practices related to birth, these appear to be the big issues that need addressing.
And if you make a point of not hitting them over the head the moment they land on the site, I’m confident a sizeable proportion of such women will stay and read.
David Gorski, “And how do you define a “personal attack”? It’s not as straightforward as you seem to think. Take it from someone who’s moderated elsewhere.”
I’d suggest you ask Steven Barrett since IMO he seems to have done it very well for a very long time.
Wales, “As for the benefits of anonymity, what anonymity does is level the playing field. We can all discuss matters as disembodied minds with ideas, without concern for our physical appearance. Why you have intentionally and explicitly brought your physical appearance into one of the few arenas where you could have remained free from that burden is a mystery to me. I do feel sympathy for your unfortunate experience and what must be a difficult life. There are plenty of other websites that serve as venues for those types of discussions. Good luck to you.”
I did not bring my physical appearance into the arena, if by arena you mean a place in cyberspace intended to combat quackery. It is my physical appearance that brought me into the arena since it is very strong evidence demonstrating the danger of ingesting silver dietary supplements.
I was disfigured by a drug prescribed by a good, caring, exceedingly naive MD who never would have prescribed it if he had read med. journals instead of fraudulent ads from drug manufacturers in an era when they were not highly regulated. That drug is now fraudulently sold as a “dietary supplement”. When I first learned that in 1995 I went on the warpath predicting that we would soon see more disfigured people. I was and still am viciously attacked by quacks who said I didn’t know what I was talking about. Unfortunately, they were wrong. There are now many victims including children and teenagers almost all of whom are too embarrassed to speak publicly or even talk to a lawyer although many talk to me. I see the victims and their loved ones, not only those injured by silver supplements but others as well. They are real human beings with names and faces. I get exceedingly frustrated when I hear people discussing unscientific medicine with “disembodied minds with ideas” who appear to totally lack any awareness of the human factor, the emotions. IMO, you can all talk and debate with disembodied minds till the cows come home but the situation is not going to change till there are a lot of emotionally involved people screaming as loud as I am, people who actually understand the danger of unscientific medicine and what it does to real live human beings.
Zoe was gracious enough to contact me off list. I have a great deal of respect for her for doing so. I think she understands what I am trying so hard to get across. This is about people, not intellectual debates. It is about feelings as well as reason. Everyone I’ve spoken to in public health has told me that the laws favoring quackery will not be changed until there are many victims. They say that that has been the way it has been historically and they hope that no one they love is one of the victims.
I’d be more sympathetic to claims that Dr Tuteur was forced out by dedicated bullies if it weren’t for her seeming to have a thin skin when challenged by people with what appeared to be reasonable concerns or who actually backed up their claims with references to topical research.
I also think someone who aspires to the communication style of Limbaugh, Beck, or Coulter is not likely to be a good fit for the Science-Based Medicine blog, even if she is an ally of science-based medicine generally.
Rosemary, thanks for clarifying your reasons for telling your story. Making others aware of risks is a worthy cause. My point remains that any perceived “personal attack” made upon you had nothing to do with you personally and was about a difference of opinion regarding risks of ingesting industrial chemicals in tap water. I cited a NYT article which cited primary sources and quoted toxicologists expressing concern over contaminated tap water (I think it was Tuteur’s Dec. “toxins” post?). False or exaggerated claims of “personal attack” can be as corrosive as the real thing.
I think we’ve exhausted this topic for this particular venue. At least I have.
Add my voice to those who would like to see another ob/gyn take Dr. Tuteur’s place, or at least someone who regularly blogs on women’s medical issues.
Wales, “You claim to take the moral high ground by not attacking others, yet do so in this very post.”
If I have personally attacked anyone who hasn’t himself already done that to me or someone else, I apologize. It was not intentional. However, I do not take any “moral high ground”. I very freely state that I respond to others in the tone that they use.
Wales, “I cited a NYT article which cited primary sources and quoted toxicologists expressing concern over contaminated tap water”
I understand that you want to end the conversation and would like to respect your wish. However, first I am going to state that I do not believe that you can substantiate the statements in the articles by following the links that followed them. They were resources not citations. I am not trying to be contentious. Neither do I want to engage in an intellectual debate. I have a great deal of experience with silver salesmen who offer hundreds of citations to substantiate their statements. However, I also have and have read almost all of their citations and know that there isn’t one that supports their claim that ingesting silver is safe and beneficial. In fact, many of their citations state the exact opposite, yet by giving scientific citations they deceive many good, intelligent people who can’t imagine that anyone would actually cite articles stating that their claims are false. But there are a lot of brilliant quacks out there who know that very few people will actually bother to pull and read their citations and even fewer will check further to see what they have left out.
Neither am I calling the NYTs journalists quacks. However, again based on a great deal of experience with the media, neither do I trust them to understand and accurately report what scientists tell them.
I feel it important to point these things out repeatedly because it is knowledge that can prevent people from being deceived, injured, robbed or killed.
I’m partial to SBM trying to find another OB/GYN. I was so hopeful when I heard about Dr. Tuteur but was very quickly disappointed with her posts. I learned very little about the issues that are often discussed regarding pregnancy (Statler Waldorf’s list was exactly what I was looking for in regards to subjects). She had an axe to grind and was more interested in demonizing and mocking woo-birth practices than actually educating her audience on the science.
I am very new to the site, I stumbled across it, found it intriguing. I saw that Dr Steve Novella was a contributor here and being a big fan of SGU and his blog I added it to my RSS feed. Shortly thereafter I clicked on the last article by Dr T and was astounded by the absence of any credible research to her post and scanning through some of the comments surprised by her replies demanding evidence while providing none. Today while surveying my feeds I saw this post and recognized the name, namely because I was so baffled by her post and follow up comments at the time that it stuck in my head. While my opinion carries little weight, having spent little time here and having no vested interest I am happy to see her no longer a contributor and have a renewed respect for the site that was shaken when encountering her posts for the first time while being unsure of what this site represented.
I’d like to see another ob/gyn posting on women’s health (to add to the list of suggestions others have had, I’d love an article about breastfeeding after C-sections, because I got told so much utter nonsense about it).
I’d also love to see a pediatrician. I work (a little tangentially) in elementary education so I see a lot of studies on things that relate to children’s learning in particular — for example, exposure to television. Now that I have a child myself, I’ve become aware that some statements from the AAP citing the same studies I’ve read take their relatively measured conclusions and turn them into “no screen exposure at all until age 2.” Toys that light up when babies press buttons are good, but entertaining them with a cell phone screen lighting up while standing in line, that’s apparently screen exposure and therefore bad. There’s enough parenting hysteria out there as it is; I was surprised to the extent to which the AAP seems to participate in that and even fuel it.
There is a great potential for misunderstanding of writings in blogs because of the lack of the nonverbal cues in communication. Many arguments may be perceived as personal attacks because we lack those nonverbal cues. We also all have a personal background that provides us with a context in communication that others cannot possibly know. That is why it is difficult for a moderator to judge what is a personal attack beyond blatant name calling or threats. The only effective process is to communicate to those when you think they are attacking you (which the moderator will notice), and then discuss that openly. That appears to have worked well already on this site, but in a few cases it has failed. However, the failure was not due to the site’s moderators.
There will always be a collision between science and personal beliefs. Science cannot answer all questions. An advocate of science should be careful to explain how science gives us a method to test only a part of our beliefs (that part we can subject to reproducible observation). Science cannot completely replace our personal beliefs, but it can demonstrate what part of our beliefs we can subject to a test, and use the results of tests to reach a consensus, even among those with different personal beliefs. If medicine is to be based on science, then we must be able to recognize when a concept can be subjected to scientific method, and segregate personal beliefs from that which can be objectively tested.
Scientific rigor is a concept of how close methods of science can bring us to a conclusion of cause and effect. Even the most rigorous methods have weaknesses in proving cause and effect. In medicine, we are very concerned about cause and effect, because we want to know that if we intervene for a patient, the patient will get better. Different fields of study will have different methods of science, and differing degrees of scientific rigor. Medicine is not the most rigorous application of science because of the number of variables that are beyond our control (as well as the ethical limitations of studies in humans or animals). However, we cannot automatically transfer a concept from a different branch in science into medical science without consideration of how rigorous those methods are underlying the concept (which is not a criticism of the other branch of science), and how applicable the concept is to a complex organism. Many arguments on this site arise, because of the difficulty in transferring scientific concepts between different branches of science into medicine.
I like the idea of a statistician because they are often familiar with the different experimental designs that predominate in different branches of science. Statistical concepts pretty much dictate the measure of scientific rigor. But any reader should be prepared that even medicine’s most established scientific concepts can be criticized for limitations in scientific rigor. That doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try to base medical decisions on scientific method. That doesn’t mean that we are incorrect about certain approaches being quackery.
ditto on the pediatrician!
Daniel
“I don’t have anyone in mind, but I would love to see the next contributor be a clinical geneticist. The field of genetics is interesting and is really starting to work its way into everyday medicine, and I’d love to see more genetics stories here. After all, it is the REAL individualized medicine.”
I’d also love to hear more science about genetics. A while back I was search for a good informative genetics blog or site that discussed the pros and cons of post-natal genetic testing for chromosomal abnormalities.
Sadly, I mostly found uninformative discussions about prenatal screening that quickly degenerated into…well people making really unsavory comments.
Any good links that would be comprehensible to a layman or that one could struggle through would be welcome.
Those requesting pediatricians: sbm already has two pediatricians, Albietz and Snyder. They don’t post much and seem to limit their posts mostly to fighting against “anti-vaxers”.
As nice as having another OB/GYN would be, the suggestion of a geneticist was the first one that really got me excited (though a statistician would be pretty cool too, if he was a good writer). It would be especially cool if the geneticist had a particular interest in evolution. The way that genetics relate to the big picture looking forward and back is always fascinating to read about, and from a medical standpoint we’d get to hear about some cutting edge stuff.
I’ll just add that I am strongly in favor of keeping the open comment system.
Yes, it can lead to way off topic tangents, but those can be very interesting and sometimes productive.
Yes, it can lead to vile and vulgar attacks, and persons who can’t keep to a reasonable code of conduct should be banned after sufficient warnings, but their comments should (usually) be retained.
I feel people should be free to let others know just what kind of person they are and how they think and reason. Plus, it can be very confusing to follow a thread of comments where a moderator has tried to selectively purge certain comments out.
I understand that a blog is only a quasi-public forum, and since the blog is “owned” by someone, the owner has the right to control what comments the choose to allow, so constitutional free speech does not apply.
I love that SBM is not afraid to allow open comments from any side, unlike many other blogs.
Interesting to note that, since this announcement, Dr. Tuteur posted a piece (on her own blog) that would fit very nicely at SBM. IMO, it’s a fine, thoughtful critique of a recent study claiming that acupuncture helps depression in pregnant women.
http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/02/acupuncture-treats-depression-in.html
If only she had posted such pieces at SBM.
Having been a vociferous critic of Amy’s methods, I would like to comment on what I thought was her best piece “Science by Press Release” on Feb 11. Ironically the topic points out many of the pitfalls of science writing that she herself was prone to. This comment was particularly worthy (note the use of qualifiers and fine tuning) “Publication of a scientific paper is not the end of a process confirming the truth of a paper; it is only the beginning. Publication does not mean that the findings should be accepted uncritically; it merely means that the findings are worthy of being included in the ongoing public discussion that characterizes science. The findings of the paper may ultimately be deemed worthless or wrong.”
Karl Withakay – “I love that SBM is not afraid to allow open comments from any side, unlike many other blogs.”
I agree, and not only because I’m one of the people that some would obviously like to see banned. From my perspective, I was simply returning like for like with Dr Tuteur (after ignoring her initial posts in the hopes that she’d improve). I don’t see standing up to a bully as being bullying and, from my perspective, someone who aspires to be the Anne Coulter of SBM can’t really complain about people treat her in return. No doubt others, particularly those who shared her opinions and are sorry to see her go, see it differently. That’s how it is with subjective perspectives. I have no interest in a grudge match with Dr Tuteur’s supporters, this really was about standing up for SBM for me. Open comments allow everyone to make up their own mind and I see it as very much being in the spirit of skeptical discourse to keep comments open so that people can think for themselves. Censorship is a slippery slope and us ultimately all about subjective calls (though it can be quite appropriate in some forums).
Just noticed JMB’s post at 8:45. Very relevant, thanks.
Sigh…too true.
You’ve got a skeptical RN here if you are looking for an infrequent contributor. I’d love to take suggestions and turn them into articles for you guys about the wide world of nursing. If there is any interest I can email you Dr Gorski or Novella.
Good riddance to Dr. Tuteur and her one-sided, narrow-minded approach to “scientific” writing. I’ll admit, I only discovered this blog because of her incredibly pro-circumcision article. But I’ve stayed around and found the other bloggers here to be thoughtful and offer interesting viewpoints on health, medicine and science.
Dr. Tuteur on the other hand was far more interested in smug, put downs. That alone wasn’t the biggest offense. If you’re going to be a rude, insensitive jerk, then fine. But she would throw out verbal land mines and react with denial and shock when people pointed out she was throwing daggers. For example, in the circumcision thread, she titled the post “The case for neonatal circumcision,” closed with the phrase “the AAP should heed the authors’ calls,” and made statements that people opposed to circumcision were somehow obsessed with foreskins. But she balked when people said she was making pro-circ claims! If you’re going to be inflammatory, at least have the guts to stand by what you say and imply.
I look forward to seeing another OB-GYN join SBM. Might I suggest that the next OB-GYN spend more time discussing OB-GYN issues? Dr. Tuteur stepped out of her speciality far too often for my liking. This was also a factor in her poor reception here at SBM, in my opinion.
Dr. Amy’s complaints about moderation are interesting, and typical of her hypocrisy.
On my site, she complained bitterly when I deleted a few really inappropriate comments of hers, after giving her several chances.
I have a really forgiving moderation policy. In fact, I think she is one of the two people whose comments I have deleted, and the other one was talking about murdering abortion providers.
She also accused me of being afraid of having a discussion on a site where not everyone agreed with me, when I insisted on ground rules if she wanted a formal debate with me on evidence based obstetrics.
Don’t try to logic this one out, folks. She’s just lashing out and saying the most inflammatory thing that comes to mind, as usual. It’s just too easy to catch her in a contradiction. She isn’t interested in science based anything or truth. She is interested in attention.
[...] of events makes this a good time to take a break to take care of some blog business and make formal what I alluded to on Thursday in the comments after I announced Dr. Tuteur’s departure, namely that it’s [...]
I’m sorry that I’m late to all of this to-do about Dr. Tuteur. Normally I wouldn’t comment so tardily on a topic, let alone even comment at all in the first place.
However, I did feel the need to voice my deep regret that there will no longer be an OB/GYN posting on SBM.
It’s a realm of medicine (and culture) so clogged up with woo, self-important opinions, and easily manipulated data that it’s entirely too easy for the lay person to lose her (or his) way.
Since there is a wish list of topics going around, I would like to add that I would love to see more approaches to many of the same topics that Dr. Tuteur already approached. Let’s have some do-overs on topics such as circumcision, home birth, and breastfeeding v. formula feeding , etc. If so many people have felt her scientific work unsatisfactory and lacking that it has concluded with her leaving SBM, I feel as if we the enquiring readers deserve posts on those topics that do meet SBM’s typical editorial style, rationality, and approval.
I think it would be especially interesting if another author could write with less of a dogmatic, stubborn flair and more along the calm and rational stylings of other SBM authors, yet come to the same or similar conclusions on the subjects as Dr. Tuteur. Is this all matter of personality and style or poor science? Or a combination of both?
In the end, I feel the most overwhelming thing about women’s health, pregnancy, and parenting issues is how very emotionally involved they seem to be. It yields as lively and vehement of discussions, debates, and arguments as discussing religion, and possibly more so. Which makes sense as giving birth and parenting involve very strong and personal emotions. I feel as if it’s always going to instigate angry comments and arguments, as that sadly appears to be the nature of the beast.
chimerakitten – “In the end, I feel the most overwhelming thing about women’s health, pregnancy, and parenting issues is how very emotionally involved they seem to be. It yields as lively and vehement of discussions, debates, and arguments as discussing religion, and possibly more so. Which makes sense as giving birth and parenting involve very strong and personal emotions. I feel as if it’s always going to instigate angry comments and arguments, as that sadly appears to be the nature of the beast.:
Woah, get a grip on the sexism and gross generalizations about “they” please! Men can be very emotional and irrational about their penises (and their colons or anuses), so much so that some will avoid basic healthcare and/or base their self identity on how small or big their penis is or whether they have anal sex. The emotional responses in the circumcision thread were almost all by men. Men can also be very emotional about women’s bodies and pregnancy (the anti-abortion movement is filled with men who are very emotional about pregnancy and women’s bodies). Not to mention that men can get quite emotional and irrational about their children and parenting too. It’s more accurate to say that some/most people can be very emotional about health issues that involve them personally but tend to think it’s justified when it’s about their own bodies but a hysterical/emotional reaction when the issues someone is emotional about doesn’t effect them directly.
chimerakitten said “Let’s have some do-overs on topics such as circumcision, home birth, and breastfeeding v. formula feeding”
I wrote about circumcision and home birth long before Dr. Tuteur joined SBM. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=64
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=269
Did you miss those, or do you think they need do-overs too?
Fifi – Woah, get a grip on the sexism and gross generalizations about “they” please!
The word ‘they’ in that sentence was not referring to women, it was referring to the topics of women’s health, pregnancy, and parenting issues. I should have phrased it better, perhaps,
“In the end, I feel the most overwhelming thing about the topics of women’s health, pregnancy, and parenting issues is how very emotionally involved those very topics seem to be for everyone involved. ”
I in no way meant for the pronoun ‘they’ to stand in for ‘women.’ All three of those topics: women’s health, pregnancy, and parenting issues typically involve men, too. I say they are incredibly emotionally charged topics regardless of gender identity or sexual orientation.
Harriet Hall – I wrote about circumcision and home birth long before Dr. Tuteur joined SBM
I did miss those, and thank you for the links! I look forward to reading them later this evening while I catch on my blog reading.
I was mostly suggesting (perhaps needlessly) that we revisit some topics from time to time, and mainly that I hope any hullabaloo over a certain topic’s authors or comments does not deter SBM from writing more on that topic in the future.
But now that I think about it it was perhaps a needless comment, as I think SBM is pretty capable of creating more than one post on a particular topic. ; ) SBM continually posts on a great deal many other topics that are often controversial or emotionally charged in their own right, and that I love.
[...] Midwife called “The Science of Woo.” Please read the whole article. She discusses Dr. Amy’s inglorious departure from Science Based Medicine, and the science (or lack thereof) behind so called “woo” [...]
[...] and a half weeks ago, Amy Tuteur announced her departure from SBM. Three weeks ago, I announced that we were recruiting new bloggers to replace Amy, to bolster areas [...]