Frederick Noronha <fredericknoro...@gmail.com> wrote: [1] JC has done a gotcha on Gilbert, as is his style when he disagrees with someone's point of view. [2] But is Gilbert implying that JC and his ike might be the Grand Inquisitors of the 21st century, when they go out of their way to come down heavy on pillory those whom they don't agree with . Specially if they advocate an alternate system of medicine other than "allopathy"? [3] If that is the case, and if (too many if's here!) I'm not reading too much into this,
JC's response: Ah Lord! Anyway ... I believe FN needs a 'mudança'. He is right. He is indeed 'reading too much into this'. Either that or it is the darn Ancylostoma duodenale in action. For starters, there is very little that I have read from Gilbert, of late, that I disagree with; mainly because I have read very little of what Gilbert has been writing in recent times. Besides, I am not really adroit enough to compare and contrast the medical views on blogs. Basically, if I want to gain any knowledge in the field of medicine, I go to source studies where I look at how the studies were conducted. That information is usually found in the 'materials and methods' of the study. For review articles, I go to the peer review journals found on the subscription d-bases. I am not qualified enough to argue with you about peer-review journals. wrt the practice of medicine, I am not in the same league as Gilbert. He is a well accomplished cancer-specialist. I am a mere physician who looks after little kids. I practice evidence-based medicine and teach the practice of risk-avoidance in the practice of medicine. In a field where patients have rights and doctors have duties, there is something called the 'standard of care'. I find it safer and less stressful to follow the accepted standard of care. I am sure that Gilbert does that too. I am sure that like me, Gilbert believes that those who put themselves out as doctors - should be licensed to practice medicine and have malpractice coverage. It is not an anti-competition provision ....just a one of public policy which is meant to look after the patient's interest. (Gilbert surely knows of the Stark legislation (US) and its purpose). I do not know if Gilbert believes in 'alternative medicine', I certainly do not have a clue of alternative medicine. My reference to quacks is specifically directed at those who purport to be 'doctors' (of whatever system of medicine) but who do not have qualifications recognised by that very system of medicine. My only issues with Gilbert are the following (I am sure he and others have many issues with me); For an educated person, Gilbert does not bother to verify (or correct) his "facts"....and that he believes that plagiarism contained in a book (not a blog) submitted to the Library of Congress (US) is OK. Now, what problem did you have with me and people of my ike (ilk)? Did you too believe that the Inquisition was OK or that Homeopathy was first practised in Goa? With the best of wishes jc