Business History Books » Business Consultant » truth and virtual lies
truth and virtual lies
Question:
>You mean we have to be good? :)
Yup. It means ‘visitor coming, talk nice and don’t shit in the teapot.’ We’ll be good. We’ll be really good. I’ll get to work finding an important issue I’d like to see presented. Thanks for the advance notice – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The author says she is familiar with newsgroups and is interested in >doing an in depth story on psoriasis. She’s looking for material, and >she might make an appearance here to discuss it. Let’s help her out by >focusing on the important issues that we’d like to see presented. We can >can discuss them here to provide some background when she shows up.
Response:
Ed, Edsays Lundberg. *"Ed’s psoriasis page," for example*, > can add a link to the American Medical Association, making it appear > that (blah, blah, blah….)
Man, I cannot believe that a responsible professional would say that without getting all the facts. Are you sure he was referring to your site? Incredible. Are you going to write him about that? Joe
Response:
> * Don’t be swayed by links – any Web site can link to another, giving > it some stature, says Lundberg. *"Ed’s psoriasis page," for example*, > can add a link to the American Medical Association, making it appear > that the nation’s largest group of doctors has given its nod of approval > to the site.
Ed, I think of all the people here that offer advice and links and such, you are the most comprehensive and all encompassing contributor here. I always appreciate your thorough research and humble ways of saying "this is what I’ve found, please go look for yourself". They don’t know you, and they obviously didn’t do their own homework before using you as a bad example. You always have my vote!!! Uv
Response:
> Man, I cannot believe that a responsible professional would say that without > getting all the facts. Are you sure he was referring to your site? > Incredible. Are you going to write him about that?
Done. A scathingly long diatribe full of suggestions on how they might improve the status quo. MSNBC got it too. Just because I’m paranoid doesn’t mean the JAMA isn’t out to get me. They couldn’t have been referring to any other site. I’m sure they get a few anomalous hits in their log file from my search engine bypass. I’ve come to realize that if I wait for everyone’s permission to do what I think is right, I’m just making excuses. Even asking creates more confusion than just doing it. If the AMA has a problem with sites linking to theirs, they should probably reject any links to their site that aren’t preapproved, or redirect them to their own disclaimer page. I would love to have been a fly on the wall when my site was brought to their attention. I can’t quite imagine how the conversation went. — Ed "buzzing off" Anderson
Response:
> Done. A scathingly long diatribe full of suggestions on how they might > improve the status quo. MSNBC got it too.
Post the mail addresses here.
Response:
> Don’t be swayed by links – any Web site can link to another, giving > it some stature, says Lundberg. *"Ed’s psoriasis page," for example*, > can add a link to the American Medical Association, making it appear > that the nation’s largest group of doctors has given its nod of > approval > to the site.
I think you have a case there to ask for a public retration. That is *not* what a link implies in the slightest, and it does that gentlemen no good in reputation terms to suggest that it does.
Response:
> I think you have a case there to ask for a public retraction.
It’s in the works. I’ve talked with the author by phone and she is sympathetic. The editors at MSNBC may not be so charitable. They have promised a proper link to my site and the NPF but now they’re quibbling over how out of context it will look without the explanation they seem reluctant to supply. They simply removed the quote on Sunday, making this all look like a tempest in a teapot. For anyone who happens to be searching news stories for P remedies, the original URL I gave still highlights the quote twice plus another trivialization of "the hearbreak of psoriasis" in a sports commentary at the MSNBC site. I’ve pointed this out to them. http://www.totalnews.com/cgi-bin/query?Q=psoriasis > Post the mail addresses here.
I’ve already posted the author’s email. Since I’ve heard no response from the JAMA party, and he was the source of the quote, I suppose it wouldn’t hurt to raise his awareness a bit. Try to offer some positive ways that he might improve the situation. I did. The author says she is familiar with newsgroups and is interested in doing an in depth story on psoriasis. She’s looking for material, and she might make an appearance here to discuss it. Let’s help her out by focusing on the important issues that we’d like to see presented. We can can discuss them here to provide some background when she shows up. — Ed "think carrot, not stick" Anderson
Response:
You mean we have to be good? :) – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->The author says she is familiar with newsgroups and is interested in >doing an in depth story on psoriasis. She’s looking for material, and >she might make an appearance here to discuss it. Let’s help her out by >focusing on the important issues that we’d like to see presented. We can >can discuss them here to provide some background when she shows up.
Response:
In an MSNBC story titled "Health online: truth and virtual lies", the with experts including Dr. George Lundberg, editor of the Journal of the AMA, and Dr Tom Ferguson of Harvard Medical School. They list many useful cautions about online scams, misleading information, and how to avoid it. Read it online at: http://www.msnbc.com/news/161811.asp It summarizes with the following … * Don’t be swayed by links – any Web site can link to another, giving it some stature, says Lundberg. *"Ed’s psoriasis page," for example*, can add a link to the American Medical Association, making it appear that the nation’s largest group of doctors has given its nod of approval to the site. * Don’t trust any physician who proposes to diagnose or treat online, Ferguson says. * Don’t trust what you see on the Internet unless you can validate who stands behind the information, Lundberg says. Ask yourself, Who is the Webmaster? And: What does he represent? The final factor in the equation, of course, is your common sense. With it, the Web will become an irreplaceable source of health information. How flattering to be chosen as the only bad example in the article. I’ve added a disclaimer to the top of the page, something I couldn’t find anywhere at the MSNBC site despite their voluminous health and lifestyle advice. I don’t suppose it’s good for business. They have their own medical experts who answers questions online. Are they saying they are not to be trusted? Frankly, I’m baffled as to why the AMA would think that I was trying to imply AMA approval rather than provide easy access to some credible information. I think I must have ruffled some feathers in bypassing all the glitz at the AMA site and letting people search the articles directly. I assume that once people get to the site, they can follow the banner clicks if they want to. My site is not like the Exorex site that puts up the logo from BU in an attempt to boost their credibility. I’m not pushing any products, and my agenda is to help others learn how to take charge of their own treatment by getting informed about ALL the options. I have a deep respect for the arduous education that doctors put themselves through, but I don’t deify them because I know that they are just running around putting out fires like us mere mortals. This reminds me of when some engineers at Apple Computer were impressed by Dr. Carl Sagan and his many contributions to public awareness in science, so they code named a prototype new computer Sagan in his honor. Dr. Sagan’s media consultants got wind of this, prompting some harsh criticisms and orders to cease and desist. The engineers responded by simply changing the internal code name to Buttheadedastronomer. I’ll try to be more indulgent and presume that these experts never took a close look at the site or just confused it with all the others. It’s a shame that helpful counselors like Dr Joe, MD get confused with the likes of Dr Swanson, DC. I think the advice in the article is good, even if they painted with such a broad brush. Given all the deception and Spam the net and my meager contributions to show it for what it is, I’m really surprised my non-commercial site was used as a bad example. I think it shows the importance of agreeing to make this group a more appealing place to find information and support. As moderate as my notions of what is acceptable in this group, my own little experiment in personal publishing is clearly beyond the fringe in the view of the AMA. I’ve abbreviated their search link to the much less informative "JAMA", but it is a useful resource and I don’t plan to remove it out of spite. Any constructive ideas on how to improve the situation? — Ed "more fun by the minute" Anderson
Response:
>It’s a shame that helpful counselors like Dr Joe, MD get confused with >the likes of Dr Swanson, DC.
Swanson insulted and ranted and then came the sales pitch, typical lifecycle of the huckster/quack.