werner@aecom.UUCP (10/19/86)
<<>> I get a lot of mail. In fact, my collected mboxes will soon approach 2 megabytes. Most is positive, some negative, but only very rarely do I get a letter like the following that so offends my sensibilities that I feel I have to share it. In the interest of fairness, I have kept the identity of the perpetrator of the letter anonymous, but if he wants to step forward and take the blame, I certainly have no objection. What follows are excerpts from the letter and my (admittedly lengthy and self-righteous) responses: > Re: Immunogen > > Craig, > > What about all the unproven treatments done by Medical Doctors in this > country every year? What about all the incorrect theories on how various > medical problems work, or ought to be treated? First, there is a difference between unproven and proven not. Calcium to prevent Osteoporosis is unproven, and although tenuous, makes enough sense not to protest about it. Vitamin C's trials with the common cold have been so dissapointing that one has to wonder why people still spend their collective billions to enrich Hoffman-LaRoche (one of the largest drug companies in the world who makes 90% of the world's Vitamin C, including most that is repackaged and sold as HEALTH FOOD). Immunogen, the alleged subject of this letter, has an alleged mechanism so laughably dubious that one truly has to marvel at the fraud being perpetrated. Secondly, I and every good medical student realize that 50% of medical theories are wrong. the trouble is that at any given time, we don't know which half. Thirdly, if a M.D. gives a bad treatment, I will not defend it. At least three times in the past year, I have, with appropriate caveats related to distance, expressed extreme scepticism over actual prescribed treatments, 2 of which were later changed. As another example, when people ask me what to do for a cold, while telling them that Vitamin C is useless, I also mention that going to see a doctor is worse, even detrimental, so have some chicken soup, have someone call you "bubula", and enjoy your 2 days of glorious misery. > > Defend the fact that medical "science" advocated the use of aspirin for > nearly one hundred years before anyone found out how and why it worked. > OK, Simple. First Aspirin was introduced before the era of rational drug design, but that's not the answer you want. The answer is that one doesn't have to know how a drug works to use it. All that is necessary is that it does work, and that it does so at safe doses -- proven safety and efficacy, not necessarily mechanism. Besides, we still don't know how Aspirin works, and if you think we do, you are sadly mistaken. > You *ARE* a pawn of the AMA, and you don't even realize it. The AMA is the > nation's largest lobby. The AMA has proven itself to be an organization > dedicated not to the health and well being of Americans, but the wealth and > well being of medical doctors. > > I strongly urge you to wake up and realize that the AMA does *NOT* hold the > only valid medical way. > Now this really insults my intelligence, and it is amazing how often people use it, not just on me, but on anyone in medicine. It is The Big Lie - but that's not the point. Leaving the AMA aside, and ignoring its motivations, mine have been put in question. I am a medical researcher. The disease I work on had 4 cases in the United States last year. On the other hand, 200 MILLION people are infected in South Asia, more than the population of the U.S. I am not in it for the money, and I could care less about AMA policy on the subject, or on almost any subject for that matter. If I agree with AMA policy more than I disagree (which is probably true), it is because those particular policies make sense. Finally, let me set the record straight. The AMA does not license a physician. The state does. Only about 1/4-1/3 of all doctors are AMA members, and I'm sure most of them (like myself) only join because it publishes an excellent journal (JAMA). > the AMA opposed the warnings on tobacco products (interestingly enough, the > AMA owned (and may yet own) many MILLIONS of dollars in tobacco stocks) > If it did oppose the warnings, it changed it's policy years ago. It divested from Tobacco stocks in the early 70s, it just recently banned all smoking at its national meeting. It official policy is now to get warnings on all smokeless tobacco, and to ban all smoking related advertising. Is this yet another case where the sins of the fathers must be borne by the children. I think not - it has atoned. > The AMA is not an organization *I* would look to for guidance. They have > proven themselves unethical, unreliable and unbelievable too many times. > You don't have to look for them for guidance, as is your wont. Unreliable, I won't quibble. Unbelievable, what's to believe. Unethical, I just can't buy that, especially given the demonstrated paucity of ethics ascribed to a sizable number of alternative health care providers, or to put it in the vernacular, the all-too common quack. Projection, perhaps? Are the sellers of Immunogen ethical? Is Carlton Fredericks ethical when he attacks "orthodox medicine" for banning Chelation therapy for heart disease when there is not only no evidence that it works, but no good reason why it should? JAMA routinely publishes articles that say bad things about drugs that carry full page ads. It didn't cover up the problems with Coronary Bypass, EC-IC anastomoses, Radial Keratotomy despite the fact that the poor results will discourage the operations and cost surgeons doing those operations lost income. In contrast, when was the last time you saw Prevention magazine run anything that said anything bad about a product advertised in it. Did you ever see a book in a health food store that told you NOT to use dietary supplements (such as those available 2 racks over). > So what good are they? As far as I'm concerned, the AMA puts together an excellent magazine (JAMA), an interesting weekly newspaper (American Medical News) and moderately interesting specialty journals (I get Archives of Internal Medicine). It's publishing activities, to me, completely justify its continued existence, and I could care less about its politics. Well, that's my story. Not that it matters. I realize I've violated the cardinal rule of never arguing with a fool because people might not be able to tell the difference, and that what I said is actually as futile as Don Quixote at the windmill to those who already have their minds made up. But it had to be said. And yes, I feel better already. Thank you. -- Craig Werner (MD/PhD '91) !philabs!aecom!werner (1935-14E Eastchester Rd., Bronx NY 10461, 212-931-2517) "I wouldn't have invited me either."
hankb@teklds.UUCP (Hank Buurman) (10/24/86)
In article <1489@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> don@opal.berkeley.edu.UUCP (Don Curry) writes: >I personally find Craig Werner's postings to be incisive, well-written and >furnishing cogent information on those aspects of medicine about which he >writes. I would like to offer him a rousing vote of confidence, and beg >that he ignore the idiots who write stupidities about his postings, his >motives, or whatever sets them off. I must agree 100% with Don. Craig's postings are the most knowledgeable, well researched, and accurate by far, on the net. Not to mention the poignant articles he takes time to share with us, and the Medical Puzzles we all scratch our heads about. This group would be a sorry one, without Craig Werner. Thanks, Craig. Shalom, Hank "I loved her with a love thirsty and desperate. I felt that we two might commit some act so atrocious that the world, seeing us, would find it irresistable." Hank Buurman Tektronix Inc. ...tektronix!tekla!hankb