JAMA editor vs moi (Was TM Ayurveda Article Comes Under Fire)
Lawson English
: I just don't understand why we are discussing superstition and religion in a
: medical group. Aren't there folklore and superstition areas for this kind of
: thing?
The point was that Skolnick claimed to never have insulted the Hindu
culture in his expose on Deepak CHopra, raja-vaidya Triguna, Hari Sharma
and Maharishi Ayuveda that he published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association and even won a national journalism award for.
I was trying to point out that the medical practice of ayurveda is bound
up in the religious (insomuch as Hinduism can be called a religion) and
cultural practices of India, and to nonchalantly quote some "authority"
on health fraud as saying that ayurvedic pulse diagnosis is "akin to palm
reading" in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association, is rather insulting IMHO, for several reasons:
1) The editors of the journal claimed that they published the
original article because the theme of that issue of the journal was
alternative medicine, and they were willing to publish articles that fit the
theme, so it wasn't [presumably] meant as a way for the journal to
discredit India's alternative medicine in the first place.
2) One of the co-authors of the article was India's most famous ayurvedic
practitioner, who happens to be a specialist in pulse diagnosis, so the
phrasing in Skolnick's reply was insulting to the co-author personally.
3) Skolnick has made a joking reply to my article that never made it to
sci.med due to his use of a commercial on-line service (Compuserve, I
think) where he suggests that my complaints about likening pulse
diagnosis to palm reading (and thereby suggesting that it is fakery) are
insulting to palm readers everywhere. I will try to cross-post.
My whole point has been that Skolnick's article, commissioned by JAMA,
was to discredit Chopra et al, and to discredit both Maharishi Ayurveda as
practiced in this country, and ayurveda-as-a-whole, as rival medial practices
(something that Andrew Wyle says is identified as part of the AMA's
function in its charter). The rationale for publishing the Skolnick article
may have been to "blow the whistle" on Chopra for concealing
his "financial ties" with Maharishi Ayurveda, but that was not the
genuine agenda of Skolnick and the JAMA, IMHO. In fact, I contend that
Chopra had no financial ties by the time the article was accepted for
publication, only exceptionally strong emotional ties that he
certainly should have made public for the same reasons that financial
ties are made public. However, emotional ties, no matter how strong, are
not as "sexy" to write about as concealed financial ties, so Skolnick
innuendoed as many damaging "facts" as he could, and and threw in as many
non-sequiturs as possible to muddy the waters, all the while chanting:
"see, yet another example of how they dupe the press!"
This "hit piece" by Skolnick has garnered awards and laurels from all
sorts of journalistic societies, and yet it has durn little truth in it,
although it is almost entirely factual. You say that discussion of it
belongs in the mythology section. I say that it IS mythology.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English __ __ ____ ___ ___ ____
eng...@primenet.com /__)/__) / / / / /_ /\ / /_ /
/ / \ / / / / /__ / \/ /___ /
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lawson English
JoeH510226 (joeh5...@aol.com) wrote:
: eng...@primenet.com (Lawson English) wrote:
: [[[The point was that Skolnick claimed to never have insulted the Hindu
: culture in his expose on Deepak CHopra, raja-vaidya Triguna, Hari Sharma
: and Maharishi Ayuveda that he published in the Journal of the American
: Medical Association and even won a national journalism award for.]]]
: The point, it seems, Lawson, is that these hucksters are tyring to peddle
: their religion as "medicine." They are the ones making phantasmogorical
: claims for their voodoo, which do not stand up to scrutiny. If they feel
: insulted when they are exposed as wrong about their claims, that's too
: bad. They brought it on themselves by making such outrageous claims in the
: first place, and by making such a bloody racket publicizing their claims.
: So Triguna is a big time religious mucky-muck in India. Big deal? Does
: that grant him a get-out-of-jail-free-card when he makes crackpot
: "medical" claims? If the Bishop of Cantebury or Pope John Paul II made
: such ridiculous medical claims, they too should be subjected to the
: derision it deserves.
: [[[I was trying to point out that the medical practice of ayurveda is
: bound
: up in the religious (insomuch as Hinduism can be called a religion) and
: cultural practices of India, and to nonchalantly quote some "authority"
: on health fraud as saying that ayurvedic pulse diagnosis is "akin to palm
: reading" in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical
: Association, is rather insulting IMHO, for several reasons:]]]
: So, they're insulted. Big deal? They insult our intelligence with their
: credulous claims. Turnaround is fair play.
: [[[1) The editors of the journal claimed that they published the
: original article because the theme of that issue of the journal was
: alternative medicine, and they were willing to publish articles that fit
: the
: theme, so it wasn't [presumably] meant as a way for the journal to
: discredit India's alternative medicine in the first place.]]]
: Agreeing to publish, explore, and discuss alternative medicine is not a
: promise to refrain from criticism of it. There is no free ride in science.
: If you can't take the heat, stay out of the laser's path.
: To the extent that the original JAMA intent was motivated by any
: considerations of political correctness and multi-culturalism, with its
: usual lax and paternalistic critical standards, JAMA may have deserved the
: controversy. But I have no way of knowing that. In either case, Skolnick's
: article was brilliant.
: [[[2) One of the co-authors of the article was India's most famous
: ayurvedic
: practitioner, who happens to be a specialist in pulse diagnosis, so the
: phrasing in Skolnick's reply was insulting to the co-author personally.]]]
: Is Triguna to be given some special kind of kid-gloves treatment because
: he's a religious heavy? That kind of deference went out with the 18th
: Century Enlightenment. Screw Truguna. He makes crackpot claims, he gets
: his. Period. If these ayurveda peddlers really deserved any of the respect
: you demand for them, why is the state of health care in India so bad?
: I have a friend down the block, old Consuela Giocomenti, who is an expert
: in reading toenail clippings to diagnose you health. If anyone insults her
: powers, her cousin Rocco shoots them.
: Now, her, I don't criticize. Maybe she on to something, huh?
: Cheers,
: Joe
: 3) Skolnick has made a joking reply to my article that never made it to
Lawson English
: [cross-posted from sci.skeptic]
: JoeH510226 (joeh5...@aol.com) wrote:
: : eng...@primenet.com (Lawson English) wrote:
: : [[[The point was that Skolnick claimed to never have insulted the Hindu
: : culture in his expose on Deepak CHopra, raja-vaidya Triguna, Hari Sharma
: : and Maharishi Ayuveda that he published in the Journal of the American
: : Medical Association and even won a national journalism award for.]]]
: : The point, it seems, Lawson, is that these hucksters are tyring to peddle
: : their religion as "medicine." They are the ones making phantasmogorical
: : claims for their voodoo, which do not stand up to scrutiny. If they feel
: : insulted when they are exposed as wrong about their claims, that's too
: : bad. They brought it on themselves by making such outrageous claims in the
: : first place, and by making such a bloody racket publicizing their claims.
Have you actually read the original JAMA article written by Chopra,
Sharma and Triguna? While the article was long on claims and short on
scientific research, it presented the basics of the ayurveda theory. Not
only did JAMA attack Chopra et al, but they attacked the theory as being
invalid without saying *why* it had to be invalid. In fact, much of
ayurveda is formalized common sense. What outrageous claims were made in
the orginal JAMA article that you found so offensive?
: : So Triguna is a big time religious mucky-muck in India. Big deal? Does
: : that grant him a get-out-of-jail-free-card when he makes crackpot
: : "medical" claims? If the Bishop of Cantebury or Pope John Paul II made
: : such ridiculous medical claims, they too should be subjected to the
: : derision it deserves.
Aside from the claim that pulse diagnosis works (and there are perfectly
plausible explanations available in our current theories of the body to
explain at least *some* of what ayurveda says about pulse diagnosis),
what was so ridiculous about the claims made in the original JAMA article
by Chopra and company?
Er, you DID read the article, right? Not just Skolnick's expose?
: : [[[I was trying to point out that the medical practice of ayurveda is
: : bound
: : up in the religious (insomuch as Hinduism can be called a religion) and
: : cultural practices of India, and to nonchalantly quote some "authority"
: : on health fraud as saying that ayurvedic pulse diagnosis is "akin to palm
: : reading" in an article published in the Journal of the American Medical
: : Association, is rather insulting IMHO, for several reasons:]]]
: : So, they're insulted. Big deal? They insult our intelligence with their
: : credulous claims. Turnaround is fair play.
For JAMA to accept an article for publication because they wanted to hear
more about ayurveda and then to liken the principle diagnostic tool of
ayurveda to palm reading is NOT "fair play." It would have been
sufficient to simply say that there is no scientific research on the subject.
: : [[[1) The editors of the journal claimed that they published the
: : original article because the theme of that issue of the journal was
: : alternative medicine, and they were willing to publish articles that fit
: : the
: : theme, so it wasn't [presumably] meant as a way for the journal to
: : discredit India's alternative medicine in the first place.]]]
: : Agreeing to publish, explore, and discuss alternative medicine is not a
: : promise to refrain from criticism of it. There is no free ride in science.
: : If you can't take the heat, stay out of the laser's path.
Criticism in science usually doesn't take the form of personal attacks on
the authors of an article.
: : To the extent that the original JAMA intent was motivated by any
: : considerations of political correctness and multi-culturalism, with its
: : usual lax and paternalistic critical standards, JAMA may have deserved the
: : controversy. But I have no way of knowing that. In either case, Skolnick's
: : article was brilliant.
I'm not sure that we are talking about the same article by Skolnick. Did
you do any checking of his sources? Read any of hte articles and books
that he quoted from?
: : [[[2) One of the co-authors of the article was India's most famous
: : ayurvedic
: : practitioner, who happens to be a specialist in pulse diagnosis, so the
: : phrasing in Skolnick's reply was insulting to the co-author personally.]]]
: : Is Triguna to be given some special kind of kid-gloves treatment because
: : he's a religious heavy? That kind of deference went out with the 18th
: : Century Enlightenment. Screw Truguna. He makes crackpot claims, he gets
: : his. Period. If these ayurveda peddlers really deserved any of the respect
: : you demand for them, why is the state of health care in India so bad?
The state of health care in India is bad because the nutrition is bad.
The nutrition is bad because of over-population. Over-population in most
3rd World countries stems from improving infant health care while not
changing the social attitude that huge numbers of babies are needed to
ensure that the family will have heirs that will grow up.
Adult health care using Ayurveda isn't bad at all. Ayurveda doesn't deal
with acute illness very well, but it does fine in the prevention dept.
(assuming good nutrition in the first place).
[anecdotal report about toenail diagnosis deleted...]
[the rest of my original article deleted]
: --
Lawson English
: [[[Have you actually read the original JAMA article written by Chopra,
: scientific research, it presented the basics of the ayurveda theory. Not
: only did JAMA attack Chopra et al, but they attacked the theory as being
: invalid without saying *why* it had to be invalid. In fact, much of
: ayurveda is formalized common sense. What outrageous claims were made in
: Yes, Lawson. I've read it. I have a research file in my newsroom two
: inches thick on Deepak Chopra, not counting a pile of his books, audio and
: video tapes.
: The guy's a fucking crackpot. The theory is invalid because it relies on
: religious miracles and prayer to heal illness. It reject materialism and
: causality. It postulates impossible psychic forces. It is no different
: from quack Christian fundamentalist faith healing. It advocates
: levitation, yogic flying, and a host of demonstrably useless treatments
: for the diseases it calims to be able to treat: aroma threrapy, massage,
: vegetable diets, herbs... etc. It's a wicked and cruel hoax on people who
: are seriously ill. It is health care fraud.
: [[[Aside from the claim that pulse diagnosis works (and there are
: perfectly
: plausible explanations available in our current theories of the body to
: explain at least *some* of what ayurveda says about pulse diagnosis),]]]
: I read your examples of plausible hypotheses. Are you mad? What possible
: mediation mechanisms could transfer information about cancer of the
: esophagus to detectable and distinguishable rhythms or pressures in the
: pulse of incredibly varied hosts? It is no more plausible than analysis of
: toenail clippings. Get this Triguna to do some controlled blind readings,
: supervised by real scientists and doctors, and it'd be curtains for the
: guy in twenty minutes. While we're at it, let's videotape his miserable
: failures and televise them live. Whattya say? Think he'd go for it? "Oh,
: no, no, no, that would not do. Because, you see, consciousness is very,
: very big part of diagnosis, and such artificial test atmosphere would
: disturb process." Geez, how fucking convenient for you, Triguna. But, you
: have an honest face. So. I guess I should just take your word for it.
: Right?
:
: [[[What was so ridiculous about the claims made in the original JAMA
: article
: by Chopra and company?]]]
: I outlined them above. When I get home from vacation, I'll be happy to
: quote you exact sentences.
: [[[Er, you DID read the article, right? Not just Skolnick's expose?]]]
: Er, yeah, I did. I read the whole exchange in all of its excruciating
: detail; as well as about a 200-page Nexis Omni search, three of his books,
: and hours of tape, including a half-hour taped direct interview with
: Chopra by one of my reporters. Conclusion? He's a typical low-level, dumb,
: crackpot, faith-healing, dishonest, money-grubbing bullshit artist.
: [[[For JAMA to accept an article for publication because they wanted to
: hear
: more about ayurveda and then to liken the principle diagnostic tool of
: ayurveda to palm reading is NOT "fair play."]]]
: But it's true. Truth is fair, like it or lump it.
: [[[It would have been sufficient to simply say that there is no scientific
: research on the subject.]]]
: Of faith-healing and yogic flying? More like, "there is no scientific
: premise to be tested or researched."
: [[[Criticism in science usually doesn't take the form of personal attacks
: on
: the authors of an article.]]]
: When they are health care frauds it does. But you also object to
: criticiszing the
: diagnostic claims of ayurveda. The Lawton English prescription for fair
: treatment of TM by JAMA: "Don't criticize the message. Don't criticize the
: messenger. Other than that, criticize away." Very generous of you Lawton.
: [[[I'm not sure that we are talking about the same article by Skolnick.
: Did
: you do any checking of his sources? Read any of hte articles and books
: that he quoted from?]]]
: Yes, as matter of fact, I did. They're in the file. Heavily highlighted.
: [[[The state of health care in India is bad because the nutrition is bad.
: The nutrition is bad because of over-population. Over-population in most
: 3rd World countries stems from improving infant health care while not
: changing the social attitude that huge numbers of babies are needed to
: ensure that the family will have heirs that will grow up.]]]
: The neo-colonial underdevelopment of many Third World countries is far
: more complex than you make out, but one very important component is
: illiteracy and religious obscurantism, and the various brands of
: witch-doctory practiced by local "medicine men."
: [[[Adult health care using Ayurveda isn't bad at all.]]]
: That's a fucking bold-faced lie, and you know it. Health care in India for
: adults is abyssmal.
: [[[Ayurveda doesn't deal with acute illness very well,]]]
: An understatement of enormous proportions.
: [[[but it does fine in the prevention dept.]]]
: How good is it at preventing cancer, or AIDS, or all the childhood
: diseases millions of Indian kids die from every year.
:
: [[[(assuming good nutrition in the first place).]]]
: And we could have a ham and cheese sandwich, if we had some ham, and if we
: had some bread. Oh, did I mention cheese? If we had some cheese.
: Excuse me, I have to go sniff some nice aromas. My lumbago is acting up.
: Cheers,
: Joe
John A. Stanley
In article <3do9gv$4...@news.primenet.com>, Lawson English (eng...@primenet.com) writes:
>Lawson English (eng...@primenet.com) wrote:
>: [cross-posted from sci.skeptic]
>
>: JoeH510226 (joeh5...@aol.com) wrote:
>: : [[[1) The editors of the journal claimed that they published the
>: : original article because the theme of that issue of the journal was
>: : alternative medicine, and they were willing to publish articles that fit
>: : the
>: : theme, so it wasn't [presumably] meant as a way for the journal to
>: : discredit India's alternative medicine in the first place.]]]
>
>: : Agreeing to publish, explore, and discuss alternative medicine is not a
>: : promise to refrain from criticism of it. There is no free ride in science.
>: : If you can't take the heat, stay out of the laser's path.
>
>Criticism in science usually doesn't take the form of personal attacks on
>the authors of an article.
Wake up, Lawson. We're not talking science here; we're talking
money. Lackeys for the medical mafia will fight with any tactic
under the sun as long as the result is the continued existence of
their monopoly.
--
John A. Stanley jsta...@solar.win.net