5 ms·

What are his pharmacology credentials? Anyways far as I can tell his big revelation here is "yeah when i told you i looked at the facts before i really didn't

by apalmer 13y ago

What are his pharmacology credentials? Anyways far as I can tell his big revelation here is "yeah when i told you i looked at the facts before i really didn't but this time i did!". Makes me take all of his conclusions with a grain of salt. Does seem clear indication that the american mainstream is getting acceptance for the idea of medical ganja though.

tptacek 13y ago
I'm going to go with his license to prescribe drugs and his neurosurgery practice on that one.
- mistercow 13y ago
  The license to prescribe drugs is largely useless as an indicator of pharmacological expertise. We let chiropractors prescribe drugs in this country (Edit: I was mistaken; we don't). The government has no idea what it's doing in its process for deciding who gets that power. I have encountered plenty of doctors who clearly had no idea what they were doing when it came to pharmacology, to the point of prescribing drugs together with dangerous interactions and not informing the patient of the risk. As for his neurosurgery practice... what? Why would you think that would make him an expert on pharmacology? Because they both fall under the wide umbrella of "medicine"? Not that I disagree with him on this issue, but your reasoning seems incredibly shaky here.
  - tptacek 13y ago
    This isn't a debate I think is worth having. I'm just saying that there's practically no reason to believe Gupta was an appropriate choice for CNN as an expert in radiological hazards, but there is some reason to believe he should know what he's talking about re medicine.
    - scythe 13y ago
      There is also the article, wherein he describes four pages worth of research he did, and in medical school they teach you a good bit about how to read scientific papers, because doctors have to do that sort of thing (eg. GSK releases lamotrigine, do you give it to your patients?). So, unless he's intentionally and maliciously lying (unlikely), he presents plenty of good and valuable information, and as a media correspondent is probably better than most at conveying that to people.
      - mistercow 13y ago
        >because doctors have to do that sort of thing (eg. GSK releases lamotrigine, do you give it to your patients?). Ideally, that's how it would work. In practice, it appears that in many cases, doctors do little research beyond what pharmaceutical reps tell them[1]. This seems to have a lot to do with time constraints. Doctors report spending an average of 4.4 hours per week reading medical journals, and they only read the full text of about a third of the articles they read[2]. On average, the FDA approves about three new drugs each month. If new drugs were all a doctor needed to read about, 6 hours for each one might be enough to get a decent idea of safety and efficacy. But of course, that's not all a doctor needs to read up on. But of course that has no bearing on whether doctors know how to read scientific papers. [1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2411-7 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2411-7 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495716/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495716/
    - mistercow 13y ago
      That's fine. I just feel like there's a dangerous overtrust of doctors among intelligent and educated people, and I hate to see comments that encourage that. If you're scientifically illiterate and generally uneducated, trusting doctors is a very good idea. If you have the cognitive tools to check their work, though, it is very smart to do so.
      - doktrin 13y ago
        Fair, but a little knowledge really can be a dangerous thing. I'm not a practicing physician, but several members of my family are (whose characters I tend to trust). The annoyance you may feel when a non-engineer pontificates on a technical topic they clearly only have a surface level understanding of is similar to the aggravation they (M.D's) feel when patients who have perused pubmed and webmd decide they're better informed than they actually are. I'm of the opinion that "trust, but verify" is a reasonable way to approach subject matter experts in other fields.
        mistercow 13y ago
        Sure, but unfortunately, most doctors don't seem to be able to distinguish the patient who's been reading alt med forums and maybe skimming some cherry-picked articles (perusing would actually be the correct thing to do with a study), from the patient who is scientifically literate and has a reasonable knowledge of pharmacology and the evidence regarding their own condition. When your doctor is giving you opiates and not even trying to find a sustainable alternative, and you do a ton of research, find an alternative drug (with few side effects and no recognized potential for abuse) that has been shown to help people with similar conditions, and send that study to the doctor, only to have him say "Well, I've never heard of that drug being used for this, so no", it is... frustrating.
        apalmer 13y ago
        actually thats not frustrating, thats what doctors are supposed to do in general
  - 300bps 13y ago
    We let chiropractors prescribe drugs in this country. What country is that, mistercow? Here in the United States, they cannot prescribe drugs with one notable exception in New Mexico for chiropractors that have received "advance practice" training. In fact, prescribing drugs actually goes against the chiropractic philosophy that involves physical manipulation of the body and your body's ability to heal itself. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic
    - mistercow 13y ago
      Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands.
      - 300bps 13y ago
        Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands. I have to take issue again with what you have said. You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science) to homeopathy (a complete quackery). To quote Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_... Other than teaching manual medicine, the medical training for an M.D. and D.O. is virtually indistinguishable. To quote the American Medical Association: http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-physician/frequently-asked-questions.page http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-... Q: What is the difference between an MD and a DO? A: A DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a physician just as an MD is a physician. Please do more research before you continue to spread additional misinformation. Thank you.
        mistercow 13y ago
        >You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science) No, osteopathy is not completely accepted by medical science. Osteopathy is absolute pseudoscience. Please do your research. Yes, I realize that DOs undergo actual medical training in addition to the quackery that gives their field its name, but they are still taught the pseudoscience on which the practice was originally based. That they believe these techniques are legitimate medicine is indicative that their entire understanding of science and medicine is compromised. This hypothesis has been borne out by literally every experience I have had with a DO.
Retric 13y ago
It is a little more than that, he is saying that US research has an obvious bias that he was not aware of.
- fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
  I'm not sure if your post is intended as sarcasm or not. If the bias was obvious, how could he not be aware of it?
  - Retric 13y ago
    Obvious can also mean Easily understood or Easily seen through because of a lack of subtlety not just Easily perceived. Basicly as soon as you look at the requirements to study pot in the US the bias is easy to notice until then it's easy to overlook.
saalweachter 13y ago
Ehh, it'd be nice if authorities made perfect pronouncements, but they don't, which is why "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy. You shouldn't be for or against medical marijuana based on what a celebrity says, even if he's a celebrity doctor. But conversely it's unfair to criticize an authority for being fallible. At least today, at least in this case, Dr Sanjay Gupta is one of the good guys. Not for espousing one opinion or another, but because he's publicly changed his mind after considering more evidence. Maybe he has incomplete evidence, and maybe in the future he'll change his mind three or four ways from more evidence. But he's basing his opinion on evidence and telling you what that evidence is.

by apalmer 13y ago

tptacek 13y ago

I'm going to go with his license to prescribe drugs and his neurosurgery practice on that one.

mistercow 13y ago
The license to prescribe drugs is largely useless as an indicator of pharmacological expertise. We let chiropractors prescribe drugs in this country (Edit: I was mistaken; we don't). The government has no idea what it's doing in its process for deciding who gets that power. I have encountered plenty of doctors who clearly had no idea what they were doing when it came to pharmacology, to the point of prescribing drugs together with dangerous interactions and not informing the patient of the risk. As for his neurosurgery practice... what? Why would you think that would make him an expert on pharmacology? Because they both fall under the wide umbrella of "medicine"? Not that I disagree with him on this issue, but your reasoning seems incredibly shaky here.
- tptacek 13y ago
  This isn't a debate I think is worth having. I'm just saying that there's practically no reason to believe Gupta was an appropriate choice for CNN as an expert in radiological hazards, but there is some reason to believe he should know what he's talking about re medicine.
  - scythe 13y ago
    There is also the article, wherein he describes four pages worth of research he did, and in medical school they teach you a good bit about how to read scientific papers, because doctors have to do that sort of thing (eg. GSK releases lamotrigine, do you give it to your patients?). So, unless he's intentionally and maliciously lying (unlikely), he presents plenty of good and valuable information, and as a media correspondent is probably better than most at conveying that to people.
    - mistercow 13y ago
      >because doctors have to do that sort of thing (eg. GSK releases lamotrigine, do you give it to your patients?). Ideally, that's how it would work. In practice, it appears that in many cases, doctors do little research beyond what pharmaceutical reps tell them[1]. This seems to have a lot to do with time constraints. Doctors report spending an average of 4.4 hours per week reading medical journals, and they only read the full text of about a third of the articles they read[2]. On average, the FDA approves about three new drugs each month. If new drugs were all a doctor needed to read about, 6 hours for each one might be enough to get a decent idea of safety and efficacy. But of course, that's not all a doctor needs to read up on. But of course that has no bearing on whether doctors know how to read scientific papers. [1] http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2411-7 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-013-2411-7 [2] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495716/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1495716/
  - mistercow 13y ago
    That's fine. I just feel like there's a dangerous overtrust of doctors among intelligent and educated people, and I hate to see comments that encourage that. If you're scientifically illiterate and generally uneducated, trusting doctors is a very good idea. If you have the cognitive tools to check their work, though, it is very smart to do so.
    - doktrin 13y ago
      Fair, but a little knowledge really can be a dangerous thing. I'm not a practicing physician, but several members of my family are (whose characters I tend to trust). The annoyance you may feel when a non-engineer pontificates on a technical topic they clearly only have a surface level understanding of is similar to the aggravation they (M.D's) feel when patients who have perused pubmed and webmd decide they're better informed than they actually are. I'm of the opinion that "trust, but verify" is a reasonable way to approach subject matter experts in other fields.
      - mistercow 13y ago
        Sure, but unfortunately, most doctors don't seem to be able to distinguish the patient who's been reading alt med forums and maybe skimming some cherry-picked articles (perusing would actually be the correct thing to do with a study), from the patient who is scientifically literate and has a reasonable knowledge of pharmacology and the evidence regarding their own condition. When your doctor is giving you opiates and not even trying to find a sustainable alternative, and you do a ton of research, find an alternative drug (with few side effects and no recognized potential for abuse) that has been shown to help people with similar conditions, and send that study to the doctor, only to have him say "Well, I've never heard of that drug being used for this, so no", it is... frustrating.
        apalmer 13y ago
        actually thats not frustrating, thats what doctors are supposed to do in general
- 300bps 13y ago
  We let chiropractors prescribe drugs in this country. What country is that, mistercow? Here in the United States, they cannot prescribe drugs with one notable exception in New Mexico for chiropractors that have received "advance practice" training. In fact, prescribing drugs actually goes against the chiropractic philosophy that involves physical manipulation of the body and your body's ability to heal itself. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic
  - mistercow 13y ago
    Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands.
    - 300bps 13y ago
      Hmm, it seems I was mistaken. We do let osteopaths prescribe medicine though, and that's almost as dumb. The rest of my point still stands. I have to take issue again with what you have said. You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science) to homeopathy (a complete quackery). To quote Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_United_States http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_... Other than teaching manual medicine, the medical training for an M.D. and D.O. is virtually indistinguishable. To quote the American Medical Association: http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-physician/frequently-asked-questions.page http://www.ama-assn.org//ama/pub/education-careers/becoming-... Q: What is the difference between an MD and a DO? A: A DO (Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine) is a physician just as an MD is a physician. Please do more research before you continue to spread additional misinformation. Thank you.
      - mistercow 13y ago
        >You seem to be equating osteopathy (a completely accepted medical science) No, osteopathy is not completely accepted by medical science. Osteopathy is absolute pseudoscience. Please do your research. Yes, I realize that DOs undergo actual medical training in addition to the quackery that gives their field its name, but they are still taught the pseudoscience on which the practice was originally based. That they believe these techniques are legitimate medicine is indicative that their entire understanding of science and medicine is compromised. This hypothesis has been borne out by literally every experience I have had with a DO.

Retric 13y ago

It is a little more than that, he is saying that US research has an obvious bias that he was not aware of.

fnordfnordfnord 13y ago
I'm not sure if your post is intended as sarcasm or not. If the bias was obvious, how could he not be aware of it?
- Retric 13y ago
  Obvious can also mean Easily understood or Easily seen through because of a lack of subtlety not just Easily perceived. Basicly as soon as you look at the requirements to study pot in the US the bias is easy to notice until then it's easy to overlook.

saalweachter 13y ago

Ehh, it'd be nice if authorities made perfect pronouncements, but they don't, which is why "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy. You shouldn't be for or against medical marijuana based on what a celebrity says, even if he's a celebrity doctor. But conversely it's unfair to criticize an authority for being fallible. At least today, at least in this case, Dr Sanjay Gupta is one of the good guys. Not for espousing one opinion or another, but because he's publicly changed his mind after considering more evidence. Maybe he has incomplete evidence, and maybe in the future he'll change his mind three or four ways from more evidence. But he's basing his opinion on evidence and telling you what that evidence is.