We shouldn't take expert advice at face value

steddyeddy

Dr. Oz, an American talkshow host was recently mentioned in research from the University of Alberta as peddling false scientific information.

Now to be fair he's a TV doctor and this should be expected. The problem is some people see the abbreviations such as "Dr." they tend to accept it. Dr.Oz is a cardiologist but he's not a nutritionist . He shouldn't be giving out medical advice about supplements.

I think people should learn to question experts more. Scientifically there is no such thing as an expert so you should always question why someone is telling you something.

Is there any other "expert" advice you think is misleading? The other one that gets me relates to drinking during pregnancy. We seem to have some doctors telling people a few glasses of wine is OK.

Science says there is no safe level of alcohol for a fetus.

There is often a mismatch between what science knows and people believe.

I don't mean there you shouldn't trust your doctor but I do think we should always question what the media experts tell us. There are maverick doctors out there such as Dr.Oz or Dr Wakefield who give advice to the general public that is at odds with the scientific community.

Del2005

I believe the person who told me not to eat yellow snow.

KomradeBishop

Yea given that pretty much everyone has Google at their disposal, there's not much excuse for just taking an experts word for it anymore - you get people presenting the 'experts' qualifications as trumping your own, but so many people with 'qualifications' are just charlatans (Ireland has a fairly high degree of woo-merchants), and even people with reputable credentials, can sometimes be the type of person that is susceptible to taking-on/perpetuating nonsense, so should always have advice double-checked/verified.

You don't need any qualifications to Google something a bit, and double check the veracity of something It's kind of an important life-skill to develop those critical thinking abilities as well, which unfortunately the vast majority of people don't seem to be very sharp at.

Senna

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You don't need any qualifications to Google something a bit, and double check the veracity of something It's kind of an important life-skill to develop those critical thinking abilities as well, which unfortunately the vast majority of people don't seem to be very sharp at.

Then it goes to the other extreme, people Google everything, they cant make a decision without seeing what someone else things first.
How's about use your brain first and Google second.

Earthhorse

Yes we should. Trust me, I'm an expert.

johnnyskeleton

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea given that pretty much everyone has Google at their disposal, there's not much excuse for just taking an experts word for it anymore - you get people presenting the 'experts' qualifications as trumping your own, but so many people with 'qualifications' are just charlatans (Ireland has a fairly high degree of woo-merchants), and even people with reputable credentials, can sometimes be the type of person that is susceptible to taking-on/perpetuating nonsense, so should always have advice double-checked/verified.

You don't need any qualifications to Google something a bit, and double check the veracity of something It's kind of an important life-skill to develop those critical thinking abilities as well, which unfortunately the vast majority of people don't seem to be very sharp at.

You dont need any qualifications to put misleading information on a website and pay google to advertise your site either.

The benefit of professionals is that their reputation is their livelihood so they need to ensure they are trusted and reliable i.e. they have an incentive to get it right that random internet people dont.

They also have insurance policies so if a doctor misdiagnoses you you could sue but if you took your medical advice from the internet youre probably out of luck!

PARlance

I'm no expert, no.

steddyeddy

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You dont need any qualifications to put misleading information on a website and pay google to advertise your site either.

The benefit of professionals is that their reputation is their livelihood so they need to ensure they are trusted and reliable i.e. they have an incentive to get it right that random internet people dont.

They also have insurance policies so if a doctor misdiagnoses you you could sue but if you took your medical advice from the internet youre probably out of luck!

But that's an argument of authority I.e he's a doctor who doesn't want to be sued therefore I should trust their advice.

steddyeddy

The biggest one that scientists are trying to stamp out is the advice some doctors give their pregnant clients "one or two glasses of wine won't or might not hurt".

This is in complete disagreement with science yet people still peddle it. Why?

KomradeBishop

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

You dont need any qualifications to put misleading information on a website and pay google to advertise your site either.

The benefit of professionals is that their reputation is their livelihood so they need to ensure they are trusted and reliable i.e. they have an incentive to get it right that random internet people dont.

They also have insurance policies so if a doctor misdiagnoses you you could sue but if you took your medical advice from the internet youre probably out of luck!

The point though, is if you have a solid base of critical thinking abilities, you have all the tools you need at your disposal, for checking the veracity of pretty much any kind of information.

People always seem to mistake this somehow, with just blindly trusting stuff found on the Internet. It's just about vetting sources mostly.

To be honest, 'professional' qualifications only count as a starting point for checking the veracity of what someone says - in almost all professions, money can make 'professionals' spout nonsense, for their own gain - the potential for conflicts of interest are rife, in most industries, so it's just not smart to trust by default.

Graces7

There is or was a website called " Trust me I'm a Doctor." meaning the opposite. I never trust any doctor frankly. Lost three decades of viable happy productive life to a misdiagnosis and damaging treatment and question and check everything now, with support groups etc; google is grand for checking drugs etc. You will never get an apology as that apparently lays them open to law suits if they admit any liability. I used to say I would trust them with a broken bone but looking at my deformed wrist after they messed a simple fracture up two years ago... and they stick together; kick one and they all limp..Met one honest one in all the years and he set my medical records straight so I was free to leave the UK with a clean start.

sink

Think from first principles. It's hard, so may be too much trouble.

sink

KomradeBishop wrote: »

The point though, is if you have a solid base of critical thinking abilities, you have all the tools you need at your disposal, for checking the veracity of pretty much any kind of information.

People always seem to mistake this somehow, with just blindly trusting stuff found on the Internet. It's just about vetting sources mostly.

To be honest, 'professional' qualifications only count as a starting point for checking the veracity of what someone says - in almost all professions, money can make 'professionals' spout nonsense, for their own gain - the potential for conflicts of interest are rife, in most industries, so it's just not smart to trust by default.

Ain't nobody got time for that

sink

Hive mind is the only way forward.

sink

We love you Rick.

gctest50

steddyeddy wrote: »

............

There is often a mismatch between what science knows and people believe.

it's all made up anyway :P


“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

the groutch

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_6u4c-BfEk

Oryx

steddyeddy wrote: »

The biggest one that scientists are trying to stamp out is the advice some doctors give their pregnant clients "one or two glasses of wine won't or might not hurt".

This is in complete disagreement with science yet people still peddle it. Why?

Youre doing exactly what this thread is about. Quoting vague 'scientists' on something definite and expecting it to be taken at face value. What science are you talking about? What doctors peddle the bad advice? (Im not saying I disagee with what youre saying, but ya still got to ask where the facts come from. Are they valid?)

Wibbs

gctest50 wrote: »

it's all made up anyway :P


“It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine”

The Lancet reported similar recently. Industry pressure and the rush to publish means a lot of nonsense gets through.

biko

I'm not an expert but I'm opinionated*





*every boards user ever.

CelticRambler

Definition of an expert: someone who learns more and more about less and less until he knows everything there is to know about feck all. :cool:

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Yea given that pretty much everyone has Google at their disposal, there's not much excuse for just taking an experts word for it anymore ...

... which would be fine, except that Google's algorithm is set up to give you the results you want to find. So the more you look for (e.g.) "safe level of alcohol when pregnant" the more you'll find articles promoting "safe" levels. It's not just advertising they're tailoring to you and your lifestyle, but information too.

Chaos Marine

KomradeBishop wrote: »

*snip*(Ireland has a fairly high degree of woo-merchants)*snip*

You mean the Catholic church?

KomradeBishop

CelticRambler wrote: »

... which would be fine, except that Google's algorithm is set up to give you the results you want to find. So the more you look for (e.g.) "safe level of alcohol when pregnant" the more you'll find articles promoting "safe" levels. It's not just advertising they're tailoring to you and your lifestyle, but information too.

Google hasn't got a monopoly on your ability to think for yourself and use critical thinking to evaluate the quality of sources.

It doesn't matter how many articles Google gives you, advocating a certain point of view - the whole point of using critical thinking to evaluate your sources and seek out conflicting views, is that you use that so you can identify all bad sources fairly quickly - regardless of whether Google disproportionately throws bad ones at you - so that you can slowly whittle down the noise/garbage/nonsense, and can get closer to true high quality sources.

Really - what is so difficult about Googling for e.g. sources supporting a point of view (e.g. "drinking while pregnant is ok in moderation"), and then Googling for sources supporting the opposite point of view ("drinking while pregnant is never ok") - and then using critical thinking to gradually evaluate the quality of arguments/evidence/sources on both sides, until you finally whittle down the debate to the sources with the most solid evidence?

It takes time - but that's the way to properly learn anything. Never to just 'trust the experts' - develop your critical thinking skills, and then trust your own intelligence and ability to research instead (while always being open to the possibility of having made a mistake and to re-evaluating the debate).

steddyeddy

I'm not saying don't trust your doctor. I'm saying there's a lot of information being peddled by experts that is pseudoscience and the abbreviations Dr in front of your name don't make you an expert.

foxy farmer

Dr Oz. Celebrity doctor.
Came to prominence through being featured highly on Oprah Winfrey shows.
Let him spout away. Just more crap that will be contradicted in the future.

Graces7

steddyeddy wrote: »

I'm not saying don't trust your doctor. I'm saying there's a lot of information being peddled by experts that is pseudoscience and the abbreviations Dr in front of your name don't make you an expert.

I am advising caution with drs, even your own. Lost count of meds prescribed that are contrainidcated with what you are already taking. Sometimes the pharmacy spots this and checks it. After I broke my wrist, every time I went to OPD the dr prescribed something different. One new painkiller was so hard on the stomach you had to take meds to protect your insides a few hours before the pain meds. Crazy..they loitered a long time in my bathroom cabinet. My body, my life, my responsibility.

Herb Powell

The fact of the matter, lads, is that doctors (real ones, at least) know more than anyone who hasn't gone through the rigourous study and training that they have, and should be trusted above anyone else.

We can all point out past instances where the doctors were wrong, but at any given time, medical professionals are the authority. The average person, thanks to internet echo chambers, has been given an inflated sense of intelligence, importance, and pretty much any other bad thing you can think of. Aside from exceptional geniuses, the average person knows fucck all about medicine.

I agree with your main point OP, that you should be sure anyone you are taking medical advice from is a real doctor, but some people seem to be missing that. There's some real dangerous anti-intellectual stuff being said, and it's how we ended up with the anti-vaccine nonsense and a whole host of other problems.

This is only being made worse by the internet with every idiot thinking they know better than the doctors.

Graces7

Herb Powell wrote: »

The fact of the matter, lads, is that doctors (real ones, at least) know more than anyone who hasn't gone through the rigourous study and training that they have, and should be trusted above anyone else.

We can all point out past instances where the doctors were wrong, but at any given time, medical professionals are the authority. The average person, thanks to internet echo chambers, has been given an inflated sense of intelligence, importance, and pretty much any other bad thing you can think of. Aside from exceptional geniuses, the average person knows fucck all about medicine.

I agree with your main point OP, that you should be sure anyone you are taking medical advice from is a real doctor, but some people seem to be missing that. There's some real dangerous anti-intellectual stuff being said, and it's how we ended up with the anti-vaccine nonsense and a whole host of other problems.

This is only being made worse by the internet with every idiot thinking they know better than the doctors.

Gee; they got you brainwashed well and truly. The most dangerous advice I was given for 30 years was from drs. They each believed what the one before said. Got it so badly wrong over 30 years. had I not learned truth for myself and stopped taking wrong and damaging drugs I would be dead or locked up in an institution. I learned truth how? From support groups online. Drs are only human. Last year I got dropped off my drs list. I had made a VALIDATED complaint against a colleague re a piece of grossly unprofessional behaviour in my home during a consultation. There was a witness and I got a written apology. Interesting thing them was that is swiftly accumulated SIX medical cards as they played pass the parcel..I do know my illness better than the drs and I am far from being an idiot thank you! PS I trust the anti vaccine knowledge also and no child of mine would ever have been vaccinated...I will not take any drug prescribed until and unless I have cleared it thoroughly ie read carefully the drug firm literature. checked with support groups etc etc. My body, my life, my responsibility.

Herb Powell

Graces7 wrote: »

Gee; they got you brainwashed well and truly. The most dangerous advice I was given for 30 years was from drs. They each believed what the one before said. Got it so badly wrong over 30 years. had I not learned truth for myself and stopped taking wrong and damaging drugs I would be dead or locked up in an institution. I learned truth how? From support groups online. Drs are only human. Last year I got dropped off my drs list. I had made a VALIDATED complaint against a colleague re a piece of grossly unprofessional behaviour in my home during a consultation. There was a witness and I got a written apology. Interesting thing them was that is swiftly accumulated SIX medical cards as they played pass the parcel..I do know my illness better than the drs and I am far from being an idiot thank you! PS I trust the anti vaccine knowledge also and no child of mine would ever have been vaccinated...I will not take any drug prescribed until and unless I have cleared it thoroughly ie read carefully the drug firm literature. checked with support groups etc etc. My body, my life, my responsibility.

This is exactly the kind of bullshhit I'm talking about. Thank you for the example.

By the way, in the case of vaccines, it's not just "your body, your life". If you refuse to vaccinate yourself or your children and then go and participate in society, you are directly responsible in resurrecting diseases that we had under control. Perhaps even facilitating resistant strains. Again, thanks for that.

Your bad experience does not trump existing medical knowledge, and no amount of crying "brainwashed!" (very convenient, isn't it?) is going to change that.

steddyeddy

Herb Powell wrote: »

This is exactly the kind of bullshhit I'm talking about. Thank you for the example.

By the way, in the case of vaccines, it's not just "your body, your life". If you refuse to vaccinate yourself or your children and then go and participate in society, you are directly responsible in resurrecting diseases that we had under control. Perhaps even facilitating resistant strains. Again, thanks for that.

Your bad experience does not trump existing medical knowledge, and no amount of crying "brainwashed!" (very convenient, isn't it?) is going to change that.

But you're referring to a phenomenon I'm talking about Herb. Some doctors are mavericks who give out advice at odds with the scientific community. It was a doctor who initiated the anti-vaccine movement. People believed him because he was a doctor.

A Dr may not have all the answers or may have personal bias at play, like any other person. A Dr is far more likely to have the expertise and ability to interpret a persons symptoms than a search engine though. Contrary to popular opinion, they usually manage to learn something during their many, many years of training and study.

Dr Google isn't always the best choice for a first or second opinion.

Zimmey

I think a lot of doctors give bad advice on nutrition. I mean, some still advocate the food pyramid, FFS.

Having said that, there's a lot of junk advice on the internet too so I wouldn't advocate relying on that too much either, TBH. It's easy to check the credentials of the person giving you advice in the doctor's office. And doctors have a wealth of knowledge that they can draw on to deal with the nuances in individual cases. You can't get this off the internet.

steddyeddy

By the way guys I should have made my OP clearer. I'm not saying you should refute or even second guess your doctors advice. I'm saying you should take expert advice aimed at the mainstream with a pinch of salt.

steddyeddy

Zimmey wrote: »

I think a lot of doctors give bad advice on nutrition. I mean, some still advocate the food pyramid, FFS.

Having said that, there's a lot of junk advice on the internet too so I wouldn't advocate relying on that too much either, TBH.

Bingo on the food pyramid. Get nutrition advice from a nutritionist not a doctor unless it's simple advice.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Bingo on the food pyramid. Get nutrition advice from a nutritionist not a doctor unless it's simple advice.

Do not get dietary advice from a nutritionist. It is not a protected title and nearly anyone could call themselves a nutritionist.

Get nutritional advice from a dietitian, which is a protected title that requires years of study to obtain.

Any half-wit can set themselves up in a Holland and Barratts with some flower remedies and goji berries and call themselves a nutritionist.

There are some who have some qualifications and expertise, but it's by no means a given.

Zimmey

steddyeddy wrote: »

The biggest one that scientists are trying to stamp out is the advice some doctors give their pregnant clients "one or two glasses of wine won't or might not hurt".

They mean the last trimester, don't they? I don't think many advocate it before six months.

Zimmey

Wibbs wrote: »

The Lancet reported similar recently. Industry pressure and the rush to publish means a lot of nonsense gets through.

Absolutely. There is a notion that everything that ends up in peer-reviewed high impact journals is top notch, but this is so not true. Science is as susceptible to politics as any other area. In third level, science students learn to analyse published, peer-reviewed articles in journal club to figure out if they are any good and, believe me, some if them aren't.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

Do not get dietary advice from a nutritionist. It is not a protected title and nearly anyone could call themselves a nutritionist.

Get nutritional advice from a dietitian, which is a protected title that requires years of study to obtain.

Any half-wit can set themselves up in a Holland and Barratts with some flower remedies and goji berries and call themselves a nutritionist.

There are some who have some qualifications and expertise, but it's by no means a given.

Quite right Candie! I stand corrected said the man in the orthopaedic shoes.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Quite right Candie! I stand corrected said the man in the orthopaedic shoes.

A lot of time is spent on nutrition in med school, it's something of a popular myth that it's not the case.

I suspect older doctors who may not be as well up on the subject may be the ones who peddle the food pyramid.

Muppet Man

OP, if you haven't already read it, I would strongly advise taking a look at "bad science" by Ben goldacre. One of the best non fiction books I've ever read, and very accessible for the average punter.... Take a look at the chapter listings here, and you will get a feel for its direction.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(book)

He doesn't hold back on Gillian Mckeith.... A nutritionist and "doctor"

Muppet man

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

A lot of time is spent on nutrition in med school, it's something of a popular myth that it's not the case.

I suspect older doctors who may not be as well up on the subject may be the ones who peddle the food pyramid.

Actually that very much depends on the course. Also you'll need to define learning about nutrition. Learning what a calorie is and what percentage of nutritional intake should come from which macronutrient isn't really learning about nutrition.

That's rote learning and bypassing learning about how it actually works. A lot of medical students protest at having to learn about biochemistry which is the fundamentals about how everything works including nutrition.

steddyeddy

steddyeddy wrote: »

Actually that very much depends on the course. Also you'll need to define learning about nutrition. Learning what a calorie is and what percentage of nutritional intake should come from which macronutrient isn't really learning about nutrition.

That's rote learning and bypassing learning about how it actually works. A lot of medical students protest at having to learn about biochemistry which is the fundamentals about how everything works including nutrition.

Thats a big generalisation there. Understanding in context is a big part of medical biochem.

I'm sure some med students don't enjoy biochemistry (or any other part of the course), it doesn't mean it's not taught well.

Tipperary Fairy

Candie wrote: »

Do not get dietary advice from a nutritionist. It is not a protected title and nearly anyone could call themselves a nutritionist.

Get nutritional advice from a dietitian, which is a protected title that requires years of study to obtain.

Any half-wit can set themselves up in a Holland and Barratts with some flower remedies and goji berries and call themselves a nutritionist.

There are some who have some qualifications and expertise, but it's by no means a given.

Dietitian is not a protected title in Ireland, yet. But I understand your point. However I would also point out that many people go to counsellors, career guidance counsellors, physiotherapists, psychologists etc etc etc, and I'm sure many benefit from them.

Zimmey

Candie wrote: »

Thats a big generalisation there. Understanding in context is a big part of medical biochem.

I'm sure some med students don't enjoy biochemistry (or any other part of the course), it doesn't mean it's not taught well.

And doctors simply don't need to know biochemistry to the level of detail that biochemists do. And they wouldn't have time to learn it to that level either, their course is jam-packed as it is!

Tipperary Fairy

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Dietitian is not a protected title in Ireland, yet.

That's interesting. However, only dieticians can be employed by the HSE in Ireland according to this:

https://www.indi.ie/what-is-a-dietitian/dietitians-nutrition-experts.html

The advice still stands, get your dietary advice from your doctor or a dietician with qualifications that can be verified and checked and provide demonstrable vigorous knowlege and training.

Consult a nutritionist at your own risk, as they may be unhelpful, untrained, or downright dangerous.

steddyeddy

Candie wrote: »

Thats a big generalisation there. Understanding in context is a big part of medical biochem.

I'm sure some med students don't enjoy biochemistry (or any other part of the course), it doesn't mean it's not taught well.

Ha ha I taught it so it's taught well. I'm saying biochem is about understanding as opposed to rote learning. Understanding context does not equal understanding. You may understand the context in which alcohol is metabolised during pregnancy for instance but you need to understand the mechanism too.

gctest50

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Dietitian is not a protected title in Ireland, yet. But I understand your point. However I would also point out that many people go to counsellors, career guidance counsellors, physiotherapists, psychologists etc etc etc, and I'm sure many benefit from them.

The title "Registered Dietitian” and "Dietitian" are now protected by law


.

steddyeddy

Zimmey wrote: »

And doctors simply don't need to know biochemistry to the level of detail that biochemists do. And they wouldn't have time to learn it to that level either, their course is jam-packed as it is!

No they wouldn't at all. Saying that they should know the principles of biochemistry and enzymes.

Zimmey

steddyeddy wrote: »

Ha ha I taught it so it's taught well. I'm saying biochem is about understanding as opposed to rote learning. Understanding context does not equal understanding. You may understand the context in which alcohol is metabolised during pregnancy for instance but you need to understand the mechanism too.

I don't really think a doctor needs to know the mechanism. Doctors aren't scientists and vice versa. If a doctor was getting involved in research a particular area, then they'd need to know. And they'd be fine then. Biology isn't that hard to learn, in my experience.

Tipperary Fairy

Candie wrote: »

That's interesting. However, only dieticians can be employed by the HSE in Ireland according to this:

The advice still stands, get your dietary advice from your doctor or a dietician with qualifications that can be verified and checked and provide demonstrable vigorous knowlege and training.

Consult a nutritionist at your own risk, as they may be unhelpful, untrained, or downright dangerous.

I'm not advocating for unregulated professions, not at all. I'm just making the point that just because something isn't regulated, doesn't mean that people can't benefit from them. Also being regulated doesn't guarantee good quality professionals.

Tipperary Fairy

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

Dietitian is not a protected title in Ireland, yet. But I understand your point. However I would also point out that many people go to counsellors, career guidance counsellors, physiotherapists, psychologists etc etc etc, and I'm sure many benefit from them.

I would hope that no one goes to any of these people without researching their qualifications first.

Psychologists at least have to have a degree in psychology, not so for a psychotherapist. Likewise with physiotherapy, unlike a physical therapist.

Counsellors and life coaches and the like may have a qualification, but the quality of it might not be up to much.

The only important thing to do is to make sure you're putting your trust in someone trustworthy, someone who fudges their qualifications will never be someone to trust.

(see 'Dr' Gillian McKeith, as mentioned earlier)