In my opinion this NY times article, which I have verifed form other source, is the one and only good reason I know of that Gupta should not be Surgeon General. Gupta got it less than perfect, but essentiall right on the FC thing. Here though, he is verifiably wrong.
http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/ The trouble with Sanjay Gupta So apparently Obama plans to appoint CNN’s Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General. I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore “fudged his facts”, when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong. What bothered me about the incident was that it was what Digby would call Village behavior: Moore is an outsider, he’s uncouth, so he gets smeared as unreliable even though he actually got it right. It’s sort of a minor-league version of the way people who pointed out in real time that Bush was misleading us into war are to this day considered less “serious” than people who waited until it was fashionable to reach that conclusion. And appointing Gupta now, although it’s a small thing, is just another example of the lack of accountability that always seems to be the rule when you get things wrong in a socially acceptable way. Update: Many commenters don’t seem to get the point. Gupta didn’t say “Michael Moore is an annoying blowhard”; he didn’t say “We question his interpretation of the evidence”; he said he “fudged the facts”. In other words, he accused Moore of lying. That’s a very strong accusation, which had better be backed by solid evidence. Instead, we had CNN misreading a number from Moore; CNN objecting to Moore using a projected health care spending number for 2007 instead of an actual number for 2005 (and the projection was right, by the way); CNN accusing Moore of not showing a number that was in fact right there in the movie. And Gupta did not apologize, except for the misread number. On Jan 9, 6:46 am, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > Jason, > > I didn't get fired up at all. I had to repost my last message with the > qualifier “I like you,” which I do, because I didn't want you to get > angry. Although getting fired up may lead someone to do more research > to support their point, it may also make it harder to take in evidence > that is against their view. It is true that I like you and you are my > friend. Even though I often get fired up, I actually enjoy it when my > opinions are challenged. I am almost 100 percent sure that I am > similar to all others and have blind spots, even now after find and > fixing so many of them. Of course I don't know because by definition I > don't “see” my mental blind spots. After re-rereading and rethinking > this, I conceded that you are pretty much correct on the anecdotal > evidence thing. I haven’t checked to see if there is any credibility > to the stories. In my opinion anecdotal evidence has some value, but > only when the facts are reliable. > > Scientific studies have much value but can also be wrong for a number > of reasons. Below are some short summaries of reasonable sounding > studies that claim the FC can work. These are on a CNN web page that > is accessed by a link on another CNN page that is one of the stories > that supposedly shows that Gupta actively promotes or promoted FC. The > most that can be said in that regard, in those articles, is that in > one, one of Gupta’s correspondents does seem to actively promote FC. > But Gupta never does promote it and in my opinion gives a balanced > presentation overall. On the web page where the below summaries are > found, there are others that don’t support FC. I didn’t bother to post > them because you already agree with those. Here is the link followed > by a some of the summaries of scientific studies that got favorable > results for FC. Please explain to me why these are all wrong. > > http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/presents/shows/autism.world/fc/studie... > Cardinal, D. N., Hanson, D. & Wakeham, J. (1996). Investigation of > authorship in facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34, > 231-242. > "We examined whether facilitated communication users, under controlled > conditions, could transmit rudimentary information to a na•ve > facilitator. Forty-three students across 10 classrooms were shown a > single randomly selected word with their facilitator out of the room. > The facilitator then entered the room and asked the student to type > the word, which was recorded exactly as typed and later evaluated; > approximately 3,800 attempts were conducted over a 6-week > period" (231). > "There were two main findings of the study. First, under controlled > conditions, some facilitated communication users can pass information > to a facilitator when that facilitator is not aware of the > information, and second, the measurement of facilitated communication > under test conditions may be significantly benefited by extensive > practice of the test protocol. This latter result could partially > account for the inability of several past studies to verify > facilitated communication-user originated input" (238). > Sheehan, C. & Matuozzi, R. (1996). Investigation of the validity of > facilitated communication through the disclosure of unknown > information. Mental Retardation, 34, 94-107. > "Three individuals (8, 10, and 24 years old with diagnoses of autism > and mental retardation) participated in a message-passing format to > determine whether they could disclose information previously unknown > to their facilitators. Results showed valid facilitated communication > from each participant" (94). > "The data from the current study lead us to caution that a phenomena > as complex as facilitated communication eludes a cursory exploration. > Each participant was able to disclose information accurately and > deftly at times and was wholly inadequate in his or her attempts at > other times...The developing picture of an individual's validity > profile replete with the patterns of required support, inconsistency, > language impairment, and strides towards independence may well be the > only reasonable evaluation of a validity confidence level" (104). > Weiss, M.J.S., Wagner, S.H., & Bauman, M.L. (1996). A validated case > study of facilitated communication. Mental Retardation, 34 (4), > 220-230. > The case of a 13-year-old boy with autism, severe mental retardation, > and a seizure disorder who was able to demonstrate valid facilitated > communication was described. In three independent trials, short > stories were presented to him, followed by validation test procedures > with an uninformed facilitator providing physical support to the > subject's arm. In trials 1 and 3, several specific answers were > provided that clearly indicated that the young man, not the uniformed > facilitator, was the source of the information. Moreover, some > responses seemed to imply that the subject was employing simple > inferential and abstract reasoning. The case study adds to the small, > but growing number of demonstrations that facilitated communication > can sometimes be a valid method of communication for at least some > individuals with developmental disabilities. > Dr. Michael J. Weiss and Dr. Jan Nisbet contributed to this report. > Dr. Weiss is a developmental psychologist at Giant Steps School in > Connecticut, a private school for children diagnosed with autism and > other developmental disabilities, and also is an adjunct professor in > psychology at Fairfield University. He has been a faculty member at > the Schools of Medicine at McGill and Harvard Universities and a staff > psychologist at the Children's Hospitals in Montreal and Boston. Weiss > has worked in private practice and has published numerous articles, > chapters, and abstracts related to infancy, children and families, and > developmental disabilities. > Dr. Nisbet is director of the Institute on Disability and a tenured > associate professor in the Department of Education at the University > of New Hampshire. She has conducted research and writing for the past > 20 years on topics related to school restructuring and reform, > transition from school to adult life, supported employment, self- > determination, inclusive adult lives and aging > > On Jan 9, 1:03 am, "Jason (Memphis)" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Isparklaria, > > > I know you personally and like you but in my opinion you are being > > extremely dishonest and irrational. If there is someone that FC > > helped, the researchers from those journal articles would approve of > > it. The problem is that those faith healing like cases are often > > supported by anecdotal stories. You are also being utterly ridiculous > > with the accusation that I am advocating censorship. I never even > > suggested that Gupta or CNN should not cover FC. That is fantasy that > > only exists in your head. I only stated that Gupta is not the right > > person for the Surgeon General position and explained why. > > > Jason > > > PS--I hope this gets you fired up. The first sentence is nearly a > > direct quote from (or at least model after) your post about me. > > > On Jan 8, 10:14 pm, Isparklaria <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > One of the reasons that I don't like Gupta is that he seems to make > > > sound byte news and also I know of him having an out and out error > > > that he refused to admit in the case of Michael Moore's movie sicko. > > > I > > > am reading the same thing from you. I know you personally and like > > > you, but in my opinion you are not being sufficiently honest. Gupta > > > did not advertise FC. He did not endorse in the stories I read. > > > Maybe I missed something. If I didn’t miss anything are you > > > advocating that the press be censored and no information by on the air > > > about FC unless it conforms to the most negative opinion about it? > > > > Here are the facts as I see them. > > > > 1. There have been several studies on FC. > > > > 2. The results don't look good for FC. For the most part it has been > > > discredited but there are some reasons to believe that the studies > > > had > > > a problem. How you treat people is important and does effect their > > > performance on something like this, especially people with autism. > > > Nevertheless, FC does not look like an effective treatment in nearly > > > all cases. > > > > 3. There are a few notable exceptions where someone was definitely > > > helped by FC. > > > > 4. In my opinion, the people who were helped might have been helped > > > by > > > any quality human contact and help with their communication. However > > > that has yet to be determined. Besides that is one good thing about > > > FC, it requires one on one human contact and help with communication. > > > If someone is basically intelligent and has certain problems (I don't > > > know what they are) then FC did help them. These individuals might > > > never have been helped except for by FC. It seems to me that > > > researchers should be trying to figure what worked about the FC and > > > how to figure out who might benefit from FC or a modified version and > > > also how to identify those people. > > > 5. If I had a child that has autism, I would want to try what I could > > > that could help them and not hurt them. FC it seems can only hurt if > > > it deprives someone of another treatment that might help. It seems > > > that in most cases it is simply a waste of time and money. If time > > > and > > > money and issue than another treatment would probably be the way to > > > go. > > > > 6. From what I read Gupta reported numbers 1 though 3 correctly. He > > > did not advertise FC, he simply reported a story in the news. If I am > > > right about numbers 1 through 3 and the evidence that I have seen > > > indicates that I am right, then in my opinion Gupta should have > > > summarized in some way similar to number 4 above. > > > > 7. Although I don't like Gupta, I don’t know much about him. I will > > > not email Obama unless I see that Gupta really did actively promte > > > FC.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Memphis Freethought Alliance" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/memphisfreethoughtalliance?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
