Posted by Dr. Bob on October 13, 2002, at 13:58:20
In reply to Re: evidence - policy/continum » Dr. Bob, posted by Alan on October 13, 2002, at 2:47:49
> we deserve better and need the most credible sources of information for your illustrious site to maintain it's crediblity.
> Visiting doctors (that have exposed their financial or otherwise intersts in a drug company) would seemingly be unqualified to give unbiased information. Why not limit advice and support from those docs that have their hands clean?
Only "credible sources of information" should be allowed to post? Only doctors without conflicts of interest?
> Don't patients deserve to have a sanctuary still waiting for them at here at PB?
> Please reconsider your policy of allowing overt commercial interests to permeate this prestigious bboard - a board full of sophisticated and newbies alike....if for no other reason, in the interest of protecting the vulnerable population.
I understand that you want what's best. The idea here, however, is support and education, not isolation from commercial interests. Alternative points of view could themselves be thought of as a form of protection:
> > The search for truth reminds me of Hegel: it is neither the "thesis" (the claim by the manufacturer that the medication is some sort of wonder drug) nor the "antithesis" (the claim by someone who blames all their problems on the medication), but rather a "synthesis" (a sober analysis of both positive and negative aspects). Information which is balanced and fair is trustworthy, whereas that which comes from either advocacy viewpoint is suspect.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20011025/msgs/82706.html