Kimbal Atwood IV, M.D., of ‘Science-Based Medicine’ writes:
“If people are going to enter the fray of debate, at least they ought to play by the rules. One who doesn’t is the Intelligent Design apologist
Michael Egnor, a nice counter-example to the popular myth that neurosurgeons are necessarily intelligent. I’m aware that Steve Novella posted the day before yesterday in response to Egnor’s recent lament about our close friend Orac and about Dr. Novella himself. I couldn’t help but stick in my two cents, however, because deconstructing Egnor’s essay is like shooting fish in a barrel, and it seemed appropriate for Boxing Day. I have avoided reading Dr. Novella’s piece so as not to color my own thinking, so please forgive any redundancies (speaking of that, I’m not the first to make the obvious pun of Egnor’s name). My post will be short and sweet and sour.” (1)
The science establishment claims to be able to rationally evaluate data, design experiments, develop theories with minimal ideological baggage, and interpret scientific results in an objective manner. So, here is an anesthesiologist and internist calling a neurosurgeon/neuroscientist stupid, in a round about way, for supporting intelligent design. Maybe you’ll think it has to do with Egnor’s criticism of the medical establishment in other ways, if you read the article. Perhaps that’s part of it.
Egnor writes:
“There is an internet cottage industry of physicians and scientists who regularly excoriate alternative medicine and other non-traditional or even fringe approaches to health or to scientific understanding. Steven Novella, Orac, and a host of other faux “defenders of science” decry the danger to the public from vaccine “denial,” homeopathy, acupuncture, chiropractic, among others. Now, I agree with my medical colleagues that the scientific basis for most of these practices or viewpoints is missing or minimal. I don’t believe that the scientific evidence supports the view that vaccines cause autism. I am not a supporter of “alternative medicine,” and I objected when an effort was made some years ago to expand alternative medicine here at Stony Brook. Alternative medicine, like traditional medicine, must be subjected to strict standards of evidence for safety and efficacy. Most types of alternative medicine fail to meet those standards, and therefore should not be endorsed by the medical profession.” (2)
Who did he criticize here? Alternative or traditional medicine? Traditional medicine’s approach is this: ‘if it cannot be cut, irradiated, poisoned, or altered with synthetic chemicals, we aren’t interested. The pharmaceutical industry does not fund us to do that type of research.’ Also, ‘we can’t charge the big bucks for any alternative treatments.’
So what is Dr. Egnor’s criticism that Dr. Atwood finds to be so offensive?
“The data is uncontestable. Each year in the United States, errors of traditional science-based medical practice kill at least a hundred thousand people, probably substantially more. These errors include medication errors, surgical errors and unnecessary surgery, preventable bedsores, infections caused by poor technique and the failure of medical personnel to practice good hygiene such as hand washing, and many others. Note that none of these deaths are caused by homeopaths, vaccine “deniers,” etc.”
I’ve learned more from Dr. Mercola (3), than I’ve ever learned from a traditional M.D.
I thought Egnor’s criticism of medicine was well founded. In my practice, I frequently have to fill in the gaps for my patients with chronic medical problems that “contemporary medicine” fails to fill. I’m sorry, but a 5-15 minute appointment hardly fills the bill. Maybe it works well from a purely materialistic and monetary perspective, but it doesn’t work well from the perspective of the patient. Know anyone who had to spend a significant amount of time in the hospital and caught a hospital (iatrogenic (4)) infection? You probably do. I knew more than one person who died from this, and more than one person who spent 6+ months in the hospital fighting an infection that they caught in the hospital as a result of their treatment. On internship, I had to don a near full body covering to go in to hospital rooms to talk to these folks (I had the head covering, mask, plastic overshirt, and so forth, needed just to walk in the room for people with MRSA and other hospital acquired infections). Try being very personal as a shrink in this garb… I did the best I could, and I really felt for these people who had suffered as the result of iatrogenic diseases. Some had been in isolation for 6+ months and could receive no visitors who did not wear the clothing that I wore. You want to talk about depression? Who wouldn’t be depressed? I sure as hell would be.
We’ve seen time and again that personal attacks are the modus operandi and an established scientific method for the anti-ID movement. It’s sophomoric at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Dr. Egnor is seen as a “quack” by physicians such as Dr. Atwood the Fourth. Does it have anything to do with his endorsement of ID or his medical practice? You be the judge. I have my own opinions.
So, let’s see if Dr. Egnor is proved stupid. Do you think Dr. Atwood (number 4) is a good enough shot to shoot fish in a barrel? By the way, the training to be a neurosurgeon requires 8+ years of college plus a 6+ years residency. Stupid or ignorant right? (5)
(1) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=324
(2) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2008/12/advice_to_an_arrogant_medical.html
(3) http://www.mercola.com
(4) http://www.onelook.com/?w=iatrogenic&ls=a
(5) http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=323
—
No, I am not an M.D., and you should listen to M.D.’s instead of me. I’m just a Ph.D., shrink, and maybe I’m completely stupid like Dr. Egnor. Actually, I’m much worse than Dr. Egnor.
Tags: Egnor, medicine, neuroscience, neurosurgery
December 27th, 2008 at 4:06 am
“So, here is an anesthesiologist and internist calling a neurosurgeon/neuroscientist stupid, in a round about way, for supporting intelligent design.”
First of all. Egnor is not a scientist. He doesn’t conduct any research. Second, what’s your point? Does his degree put him beyond reproach when he’s wrong?
“So what is Dr. Egnor’s criticism that Dr. Atwood finds to be so offensive?…”
You are not providing Atwood’s objections or providing any of her criticisms of Egnor’s piece. You don’t even include the part where she challenges the numbers provided by Egnor. Did you miss that part or intentionally omit it? For those of you who don’t intend to read Dr. Atwood’s blog post, here’s a small potion of it.
“Traditional medicine’s approach is this: ‘if it cannot be cut, irradiated, poisoned, or altered with synthetic chemicals, we aren’t interested. The pharmaceutical industry does not fund us to do that type of research.’”
No. A treatment that is demonstrated in clinical trials to be effective will be adopted. If this treatment is some kind of herb, the chemicals that caused the desired affect will be isolated and made into a ‘pill’ resulting in a much more effective drug. As far as funding, that comes in all shapes and sizes.
“Know anyone who had to spend a significant amount of time in the hospital and caught a hospital (iatrogenic (4)) infection? You probably do. I knew more than one person who died from this, and more than one person who spent 6+ months in the hospital fighting an infection that they caught in the hospital as a result of their treatment.”
This has nothing to do with medicine. Viruses and bacteria evolving to become resistant to drugs is not the fault of science or medicine (well…). The same applies to accidental (key word there being accident, as in an unintended consequence resulting from human failure) infections. That’s entirely an issue with hospital protocol. The risk of infection will always be present when dealing with individuals whose immune system have already been compromised. If you haven’t noticed, people tend to go to hospitals when they’re ill.
“We’ve seen time and again that personal attacks are the modus operandi and an established scientific method for the anti-ID movement. It’s sophomoric at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Dr. Egnor is seen as a “quack” by physicians such as Dr. Atwood the Fourth. Does it have anything to do with his endorsement of ID or his medical practice? ”
Neither. Dr. Egnor runs his mouth about things he doesn’t understand or know the first thing about. (One such example? Good Math, Bad Math A fine back hand from MarkCC who has very personal reasons for objecting to Creationist Doctors. ) In my book that makes him an idiot.
December 27th, 2008 at 5:05 am
So, only “scientists” can criticize science? I conducted a number of experiments in graduate and undergraduate school and designed computer programs and experimental equipment for 15+ studies. I’m in practice now, does that make me “not a scientist” as well?
Nobody is beyond criticism. As an aside, I’m imagining a group of 4th graders huddled together pointing at another 4th grader and calling him “stupid.” …The imprinting and MO of an average atheist scientist.
As to Dr. Atwood’s criticism (I’m not referring to the pre-adolescent personal attack), you really believe that the 700K+ deaths is out of the question? So, even the 48-98K is out of the question? Dr. Atwood (it’s a “he” by-the-way, and not a “she”), said so; therefore, it’s true. Case closed. Right??
Really? That’s absolutely amazing. The resistance of viruses and bacteria to medication have nothing to do with medicine. The term iatrogenic is free from implication of intent. Had they not been in the hospital, they would not have acquired the infection. Yes, people don’t follow the protocols, hence, iatrogenic illness and death.
To be fair, it’s not completely the fault of physicians. Folks want their antibiotics, and physicians who don’t prescribe them lose patients.
As to “evolving” bacteria and viruses, I assume you mean simple natural selection. There are no new species formed, and generally the changes are a loss, rather than a gain, in function.
You call Egnor a “Creationist,” but he is not. I am a creationist. (Imagine the huddle again, finger pointing, and snickering…’He’s a creationist….tehe’).
BTW, the “Good Math, Bad Math” post is another example of death by iatrogenic causes. Oops…let’s subtract that because an individual attributes it to the “creationist” leaning of a physician. ‘If only, if only, he had believed in evolution, this would not have happened.’ Is that your assertion?? Certainly, the author of the post experienced much pain, but was it because the doctor was a ‘creationist?’ I think not.
December 27th, 2008 at 8:19 am
No he isn’t! He is a physician who has to be capable of accomplishing something other than a new naturalistic fairy tale, which leads people around by their undiscerning noses.
Julian speaks of “understanding,” and yet he has none! Imagine that?
December 27th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
For the record, Dr. Egnor has informed me that he does quite a bit of research as a scientist and has done so for 20 years.
December 27th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
“So, only “scientists” can criticize science?”
You gave Egnor credit for something he was not.
“For the record, Dr. Egnor has informed me that he does quite a bit of research as a scientist and has done so for 20 years.”
such as?
“Had they not been in the hospital…”
they would have had to take their chances with whatever caused them to go to the hospital in the first place. (A major point of both Dr. Atwood’s and Dr. Novella’s pieces is that Dr. Egnor ignored the entire risk vs benefit portion of medical treatment.) I’d like to see the death rates for people who don’t seek medical help when they’re ill.
“As to Dr. Atwood’s criticism (I’m not referring to the pre-adolescent personal attack), you really believe that the 700K+ deaths is out of the question?”
Stop trying to change the topic. The numbers you and Dr. Egnor cite are based on a terribly flawed ’study’ and are worthless.
“So, even the 48-98K is out of the question? Dr. Atwood (it’s a “he” by-the-way, and not a “she”), said so; therefore, it’s true. Case closed. Right??”
Provide the full quote, please. To do otherwise is dishonest. Atwood still doesn’t accept the numbers and even if he (Kimball looked like a girl’s name to me) did that doesn’t mean I have to. When trying to determine who’s ‘right’ it’s never up to who has the best title but who has the best argument and is supported by the most data. Which is why I took offense to your insinuation that Atwood (as a mere anesthesiologist) isn’t fit to criticize Egnor.
“As to “evolving” bacteria and viruses, I assume you mean simple natural selection. There are no new species formed, and generally the changes are a loss, rather than a gain, in function.”
That’s false and self contradicting. The new strain has gained a resistance to the drugs. How is that a loss?
You’re also setting up some ridiculous strawman about evolution. That a new species arises (regardless of how ‘fit’ that new species is, although the clear trend is a new species better suited to its environment. Key word there is ‘their.’) is evolution.
“You call Egnor a “Creationist,” but he is not.”
He believes humans were specially created in present form by some agent outside of nature. That’s Creationism.
“‘If only, if only, he had believed in evolution, this would not have happened.’ ”
If he had understood evolutionary theory, such as the rate at which Natural Selection produces new life forms ( and pretty much everything else Egnor, you no doubt, the entire DI and all Biblical Litralists call junk science) it would have been avoided.
And you’re missing the entire point of Mark’s blog post. Egnor made an argument that had nothing to do with anything and claimed it disproved evolution. Mark called him out on it. Egnor is called an idiot, Egnorant and the like because he has earned a reputation of running his mouth when he doesn’t know what he’s talking about, like I said before.
By the way. Do you plan on challenging Steven Novella) or do you feel him being a neurologist puts him on some pedestal you can’t reach?
December 28th, 2008 at 7:50 am
“You gave Egnor credit for something he was not.”
How so?? Please enlighten.
“such as?”
Read his vita.
Whether they would have died otherwise is irrelevant to the determination of iatrogenic cause of death. A field that buries its head in the sand and does not face these stark realities head on can hardly improve. Atwood is not stupid, but he has blinders on. It’s the patient that has to consider the risk vs benefits more than the doctors. It’s the patient’s life that is on the line, not the doctor’s. I’m not sure we have any good stats on no treatment vs. treatment. I know in psychiatry some of that data exists (such as an increased suicide rate for those taking antidepressant medication vs. those not taking it–at least for certain age ranges). We hope, and at least I generally believe, that medicine may does more good than harm. Certainly this is the case for traumatic injuries. I have uncertainty where chronic diseases are concerned.
For example, what if pre-diabetics knew there was no treatment for diabetes other than making radical dietary changes. Would they be better able to make radical dietary changes to avoid a full syndrome of Type II Diabetes? I don’t think we know. There are times when the comfort of knowing medical treatments exist that may lead to increased problems. In my field, some of us know that a high level of distress is highly motivating. Remove the distress too soon, and you get a poor outcome.
It may be more clear in Dr. Egnor’s chosen field: you have a growing tumor, or abnormal vascular formation in the brain. You know the risk of death from non-treatment is X, and the risk from treatment is Y. Not all medical conditions have such clarity. Most have a psychological, or at a minimum, a behavioral component. This is rarely addressed in traditional medicine.
For chronic conditions, there is always an ongoing interaction of multiple factors. I see most often three factors from the medical establishment that actually make these conditions worse: 1) they are poorly educated about nutrition, 2) they are poorly educated about the psychological factors, and 3) they adhere too greatly to a materialist perspective (”We can address everything through the material substance of a person.”).
So, I’m not an MD as I’ve said before, but I am often left filling the large gaps in the knowledge of physicians with patients who have chronic medical conditions. One difference is, I realize that I am ultimately flawed and very limited as a human being. I realize that the complexity of human physiology and psychology lies far beyond my capabilities (and for that matter, the capabilities of any human being). I don’t adhere to the Darwinian maximum of “chance did it.” I adhere to what is plainly obvious throughout history: human and biological design is ALWAYS more complex than is believed. Please point out a historical time when this has not been true.
It’s an honest mistake on the he/she issue. I have no problem with that. My criticism was largely leveled at the personal and immature attack of Dr. Kimbal. If he wants to make issue of the number of iatrogenic deaths, more power to him. Is it your assertion that this is what he truly took issue with? I don’t think so.
“He believes humans were specially created in present form by some agent outside of nature. That’s Creationism.”
Really? I’d have no problem if he believed that, but he doesn’t seem to, per his own statements. Actually, if I would level a criticism against him, it would be that he appears to not believe this.
Julian writes:
Whatever. You have not even the slightest modicum of proof of that assertion.
No, Egnor is called an idiot because he disagrees with his atheist/materialist colleagues. I have seen absolutely no evidence of him “running his mouth without knowing what he is talking about.” I’ve seen that from you, but not him. I have no need of challenging Novella. I trained with a few neurologists on internship, and no, I’m not afraid of them. They’re all a bit quirky, but I’ve like most of them I’ve met. Yes, I had a fair amount of training in neuropsychology. Dr. Egnor has already challenged Novella quite effectively.
December 29th, 2008 at 10:26 am
That’s false and self contradicting. The new strain has gained a resistance to the drugs. How is that a loss?
If you had to have a lobotomy removing 90% of your brain function because you were being too willfully stupid to admit to the correct answer otherwise then that would be a loss, correct?
There is a difference between a constructive and destructive process. Although given their sharply limited intellects many Darwinists have advanced destructive processes as supposed evidence having to do with the construction of complex body plans and the origins of all the form and specification typical to species.
A hypothetical analogy with a touch of satire might help illustrate the difference between construction and destruction: If a group of humans existed and only those without hands survived because they couldn’t eat a poisonous form of food then it wouldn’t make sense for them to argue that the generally destructive process of survival and death which they could observe brought about humans and hands in the first place. All they would actually be observing is a general reduction in form and function which benefited survival their environment, after whatever original capacity for form and adaptation they had thanks to their origins was played out they would most likely simply go extinct. Some of them might try to point to processes of death and destruction as “evidence” or an “explanation” for the origins of life, form and function but eventually they wouldn’t have the hands to do so.
Darwinists often cite any “change” as verification of the hypothetical goo typical to their theories of evolution. Apparently their intellects are so limited that they are incapable of basic distinctions having to do with form, function, intelligence, capacity for adaptation and so on but there are still basic differences between constructive and destructive changes. If all change is evolutionary and therefore every change validates the so-called “theory of evolution” then evolutionary theory has not been specified and it degenerates into meaningless drivel which is not limited by empirical evidence. Of course change happens, much like excrement happens, but if Darwinism explains all change then it may as well be excrement.
Whoever said that change does not happen? Is that what must be observed to falsify the so-called “theory of evolution,” the absence of change?