Posted by bleauberry on February 22, 2009, at 10:20:59
In reply to Re: No Evidence For Chronic Lymes Disease, posted by bulldog2 on February 21, 2009, at 7:13:05
>
> Beware of quack lyme's doctors!!!!
>
> http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/lyme.htmlDefinitey beware. Quack MDs are everywhere. I find them mostly in the family practioners and psychiatrists. You know, those doctors with many people in the waiting room (a sign of that doctor's patients not getting well and the resulting revolving door effect), MDs who rush you in and out, have a prescription pad in hand within minutes, and paste some label on you without doing diligent work to rule out alternative causes for your symptoms.
Quackwatch, by the way, is in my opinion not a reliable site at all. Do you remember I mentioned "cherrypicking" information? They are pros at that. They demonstrate expertise in choosing just the right evidence to show their case, enough evidence to "suggest" they are looking at all the opposing evidence (though they are not), and leave the reader absolutely convinced by the cleverly crafted scenario. That being said, they should defininetly be one of your sources of information, which brings me to the next paragraph...
The best way to come to an opinion is not to let someone else do it for you. Instead, go into any topic with a neutral open mind. Read everything you can find. Quackwatch would be just one of perhaps 50 different things you read. Take in an equal amount of sources that support the topic and an equal amount that oppose the topic. In other words, become an expert on both sides in your own right. Not the result of someone else's homework, but the result of your own, which is probably going to be much more thorough since you went into it unbiased and neutral.
By the time this research process is completed, in which you have been playing the role of an impartial judge all along, you will have formed your own concrete opinion that you can be proud of, and you can then render a verdict. You can even come to the common conclusion, "We just don't know enough at this time to fully understand the comlexities, but with what we do know I tend to believe, for now,..."
As for LLMD quacks, those would probably more likely be some of the naturopath LLMDs and fewer of the MD LLMDs. Full fledged MDs are just under a lot more regulational scrutiny. They are more closely watched and punished for improper treatments. Even so, as I said, there are quacks in every profession, every arena of medicine, and every hospital. We should always beware of quacks in any corner of our lives.
I was afraid of any ole doc to help me with a suspected infectious disease. So I became a member of several forums that specialize in it. At them, I requested names of the best doctors. The names I got were few, six actually, in all of New England. Three of those names came to me from more than just one forum. So I had some overlapping confirmation. The folks that gave me the names are former and current patients. Who better to judge whether a doc is a quack or a pro?
Current and former patients spoke so highly of two of the doctors I narrowed my list down to. "Saints" is what they were referred as. I doubt anyone with any sense of quackness would get that kind of reputation.
Hey, did you read any of the info SLS gave, and the names I gave? Sam Donta, Boston General? International Lyme And Associated Disease Society? My own doc, Rex Carr? Any of it? You kind of have to if you want to be an expert, because reading quackwatch won't make anyone an expert. You need the whole picture to make an informed decision. The names above actually get people healed from mysterious diseases no one else can figure out. Quackwatch is not in the healing business.
Unforutnately many of us are so ill we don't have the strength to guard against quacks, seek experts rather than quacks, or know a quack when we see one. That is evidenced clearly on this board day after day.
poster:bleauberry
thread:880255
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20090213/msgs/881654.html