Attacking the President & CEO

[Geish]

I haven't jumped into these "discussions" but have been following along for quite a while. I have to agree with Pam here...I notice a lot of fodder being thrown into the fire by people on both sides of the issue.

To say that someone that has had surgery shouldn't be allowed to post on the non-surgical section is ridiculous. Do you really believe that post surgery patients only advocate for surgery? Do I wish I could have managed my scoliosis without surgery...yes. Was that a viable option for me ...no. Without surgery I would have been in a wheelchair within a matter of years. My body was corkscrewing and crumpling in on itself at an alarming rate. I think each and every post surgery patient wishes that surgery wasn't their only option besides many more years of pain and disability. It doesn't mean our input and opinions are any less valuable because we are now post op.

Everyone here has a right to post in whatever section they choose. They also have to expect to be challenged when their posts deserve challenging.
I for one am appalled at how this entire section has morphed into a constant battle, with the bickering going back and forth on both sides. I for one would like to see it stop. It really isn't helpful to anyone. I am not advocating that people quit challenging things that need challenging, but please, do we really need 18 pages of arguing on a single thread? Do it between yourselves by email or PM.

Ok I am off my soapbox...I am now ready to be blasted by whomever disagrees with my opinion.

PS...Pam I always value your input and opinions. You have a lot to share with everyone here and you never shy away from a tough discussion.

[Dingo]

trolls are the issue

There is a big difference between

A) Demanding that everyone agree on all subjects
B) Keeping trolls in line

This board has a troll problem.

[txmarinemom]

There is a big difference between

A) Demanding that everyone agree on all subjects
B) Keeping trolls in line

This board has a troll problem.

Define "troll".

Not literally ... I'm not that daft.

The "trolls" who've caused the *most* discord to this forum (if the shoe fits ... or fits your friends, so be it) have been recent additions, IMO ...

(Writer and I have been at it for years. Only one of us admits there's NO EVIDENCE Schroth does NOT correct a curve - outside Weiss' papers.)

[Writer]

I'm realistic ... and for all of you who claim I'm a big mean bully, there are just as many who perceive me differently.

Frankly I doubt the accuracy of this formula. The few posts in this thread by people who say that they seldom post any more because of trepidation are a poignant testimony to how bad the atmosphere here has become. I have corresponded off forum with others. Who knows how numerous the silent majority are?

I really think the problem is I don't agree with foo-foo treatments, and some can't stand to believe they ARE foo-foo. There is no miracle, alt, easy treatment ... and to take it personally everytime someone points that out is setting yourself up for a MAJOR letdown.
It's not in my nature to let false treatment claims stand: I've lived with this monster for 31 years, and I'd be remiss to let some of the misinformation here stand.

This goes to the heart of the matter. It is an arrogant and manipulative stance, like pooka's, anointing yourselves as primary arbiters of Truth here, apparently supported by the moderator.

For one, neither of you has experience with, or much knowledge of at least some of the treatments that are the objects of your derision ("foo-foo treatments"). So you often don't know what you are talking about, yet sling sarcasm anyway. That mantle of scorn that you and pooka wear in so many threads is the acid that has etched away this board for a year and a half. And neither of you ever lets up. You HAVE to have the last word, and you're all over the board. In five years here I have 130 posts; in 1/3 of that period you have posted at over thirty times my rate.

It's not your job or anybody else's here, including the moderator's, to control and protect the rest of us from whatever you have decided is "false information." Most of us are adults. There are a lot of college and advanced degrees among us. We can perfectly well decide an issue for ourselves if permitted unfettered access to a broad selection of opinion and information. Nobody needs to censor it. Weak approaches will eventually be revealed for what they are. Joe has expressly defined this place as a community center for friendly support and information sharing, which is exactly what it should be.

In terms of the NSF forums, if/when anyone attacks an individual as opposed to attacking an idea, I definitely will step in.

But sniping attacks on individuals have been happening regularly for a very long time with no apparent moderator intervention. You've not lifted a finger. Not even our president is safe from deprecatory comments, which is the whole reason for this thread. You will note that a significant majority of respondents so far agree that this is a serious problem.

And why should "attacks" on ideas be so blithely permitted? They quickly degenerate into ad hominem arguments here. It's not at all difficult to disagree with an idea, to query, probe, in a gentlemanly manner if one so chooses -- or is constrained to do so by a moderator.

I strongly support -- at the very least -- forbidding anyone who has acquired a reputation for anti-conservative-treatment contentiousness from posting in Non-Surgical threads, or wherever else that they have wrought havoc. The improvement in atmosphere would be immediate and dramatic. They really should have had one warning, then a stern warning, and then gotten the boot altogether. In many well-run forums they don't even get a warning, they're summarily banned after one offense.

I think even Geish might support the above -- since she is justifiably repulsed by the bickering in the non-surgical section. (Relax, G, no attack from me, LOL.) The same few people are causing it in most cases.

If you, Linda, cannot recognize and acknowledge that there is a very serious problem on this board, and take appropriate measures to correct it, then we either need a separate non-surgical section moderator or a new moderator altogether.

[mamamax]

Mamamax ... I hope in your "heart of hearts", you can at least acknowledge you have thrown more than the usual share of oxygen into the fire since your very first posts (and all the ones you deleted ... shall I link to them again?).

Writer, I don't even know what to say to you (I gave that up long ago). You push a treatment that has no proof, and I simply can't ever take your grandstanding that seriously.

The rest of you can like me or not. I'm realistic ... and for all of you who claim I'm a big mean bully, there are just as many who perceive me differently.

I really think the problem is I don't agree with foo-foo treatments, and some can't stand to believe they ARE foo-foo. There is no miracle, alt, easy treatment ... and to take it personally everytime someone points that out is setting yourself up for a MAJOR letdown.

It's not in my nature to let false treatment claims stand: I've lived with this monster for 31 years, and I'd be remiss to let some of the misinformation here stand.

I'll agree to trying to state things more kindly if some others will agree to respond to anything short of being hit over the head with facts.

Regards,
Pam

Pam -

What you have said about me, is wrong.

What you have said about Writer is wrong.

What you have said about Joe and many others here is - WRONG

And it all comes under the category of false accusation.
Example: http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/showthread.php?t=7733

I would like to ask you once again ... are you still threatening legal action against Joe O'Brien?

REFERENCE: http://www.scoliosis.org/forum/member.php?u=114

[Pooka1]

And why should "attacks" on ideas be so blithely permitted?

This is the entire issue.

Some here do not believe ideas without evidence, in some cases over decades and decades as in the case of Schroth, should be challenged per se. I mean they seem to think that Schroth was a person, Weiss is a person, therefore challenging their ideas and asking for evidence constitutes "attacking" them on a personal level. That's not how science and medicine work.

It's also obvious that many here incorrectly perceive their idea being criticized as them being criticized or discouraged for the sake of discouraging or whatever.

Perhaps you can agree both those things are serious impediments to the spread of QUALITY, evidence-driven information.

[Pooka1]

This board has a troll problem.

That imaginary problem is dwarfed by the very real problem of folks not understanding how to approach the scientific literature.

It's orders of magnitude worse and might constitute the worst problem.

As an example, we have seen people claiming three pages of citations in pubmed by a certain author constitute some knock-down evidence for Schroth per se. But when you actually look at the studies, many aren't even dealing with Schroth and the ones that are have few patients and/or also used bracing.

I ran my cursory analysis of these pubs by the good folks at Quackwatch who largely agreed with me that this is no knock-down set of papers for Schroth. See "Quackwatch and Schroth" thread.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem. People just don't understand how to approach the literature and don't understand why most published results are false.

Something that is likely though not guaranteed to be true are longitudinal studies with actual patients that present easy to measure things. Certain surgical treatments are doing this. And when a treatment has been around for decades and has been studied by a trained orthopedic surgeon for several years and still has no knock-down proof, that is a type of evidence.

Now something like torso rotation PT where we have one or two lone voices in the wilderness might fits the pattern of the guys who found H. pylori. Maybe if they ever develop enough steam they can accumulate enough evidence to show it works. But what we don't know is if, like Schroth, it has been tried for a long time and still has little evidence. Also, the fact that other forms of PT have little evidence doesn't bode well though is not dispositive.

[Pooka1]

posts by pooka1:

"He seems to be a man of faith, not evidence. … Faith in conservative treatments as against evidence for non-fusion (and possibly fusion) surgery. … I suggest that is no way to approach a serious medical issue (if that is indeed his approach)." Post #241

"I was right. He's a man of faith, not evidence. … He's a man of faith AS AGAINST evidence. … Science is a way of knowing. Faith is a way of pretending to know." Post #250

"What isn't ridiculous to suggest is that what gets linked to is simply where O'Brien's hopes and interests lie, as opposed to where the evidence leads. His site, his prerogative I suppose but that is not really being true to what facts are or are not out there." Post #256
++++++++++++++++++++++

If someone was a racist, would it be okay to attack that idea?

If someone was a Holocaust denier, would it be okay to attack that idea?

I'm wondering what your answer is at this point whereas I wasn't wondering before. And I'm wondering NOT because I think you are a racist or Holocaust denier but I don't think you see the overarching problem with your post.

What you are really complaining about here is that my comments are too factual.

There's folks interested in the most up to date facts and there is everyone else. This forum has at least these two camps and I don't see a resolution just like I don't see a time when cases like Kitzmiller v. Dover suddenly stop threatening innocent kids and rational society.

It's a problem. There are lots of problems.

[Pooka1]

I believe that most of us need this forum for support and advice. (

In re advice, do you want science and evidence driven advice or speculative advice?

Do you want to know what is known or what is hoped?

[Pooka1]

I believe there are different sections for a reason. Those who do not agree with things in one section need to leave the section and have healthy discussions in a section where their advice will actually be helpful. Most of us are emotionally driven in this area of our lives and debates do not help in finding answers and support. Discussions help. Discussions are the exchange of words between people with similar issues, ideas, and thoughts in common. I sort of agree with Linda that some users on here should not be booted out. They do have some good advice. I just wish they would use it in the proper section where it is useful to those who need it.

I agree that some come on here simply looking for support of their treatment choice and not the evidence case for or against it. Not everyone wants facts all the time.

Maybe we should have one section called:

"Science/Medicine/Evidence"

and one called:

"Emotional support/Other"

No evidence for or against is allowed to be posted in the second section which will carry a huge disclaimer and warning to that effect.

Would that help? I think it would address the concerns people have stated.

[bas2101]

Agree with Writer.

Joe has been the saving grace regarding my 14 year-old daughter's 7 years with scoliosis, always thoughtful, considerate, and willing to offer more information than I could have gathered in my many years of researching this disorder. And, he is a wealth of information in both surgical options, and alternatives-his life's work IS scoliosis. Most importantly, he took the fear out of having scoliosis, when numerous others were scarring the hell out of us. I can only praise and thank this incredibly wise, knowledgeable, and generous man-I assume anyone else who knows him, would do the same.

[MichelleK]

UGH!!! Some of you are missing the point, again!!! Nobody is saying we only want to have people that agree post, but some of the posters are rude, arrogant & aggressive. There are many ways to make your point, doesn't have to be done in a way that's disrespectful. I give up!! Too bad info can't be shared like adults on here. I'm out

[Geish]

I don't support censorship...please don't try to speak for me. I thought I made that point clear when I stated that everyone has a right to post in whatever section they so choose. Also, don't say what you think I may or may not support. I am capable of making my thoughts known all by myself.

I believe every voice has a right to be heard...even those who disagree with me. I just fought a battle with our local school over this very issue... and won I might add. We have a great thing here in the US, where I happen to be from, it's called the First Amendment. Don't try to take away someone's right to express themselves. You may disagree with what they have to say, but they still have a right to say it.

[betty14]

Message to Pooka1:

Although you have a lot of knowledge to share, the manner in which you share it is the problem. I hope this does not overstep the bounds of what is allowed in this forum, but I feel that many (not all, maybe 40%) of your posts are aggressive, beligerent, and profoundly arrogant.

It is right to let people know when they have mispercieved a study or made inappropriate extrapolations, however when this is done in a manner that builds up your own sense of superiority and puts others down, that is not right. And post after post after post of repetition....endless fighting is so fruitless. People do have busy lives outside of cyber self-defense.

If your goal is to get people to come over to your way of thinking, you need to change your style of communication to better meet that goal. Rhetoric is an art. The best medical professionals are also great communicators, very important when your job is to serve people.

I fear your respsonse to this will be something along the lines of - Betty14, you are not intellectually honest, you just don't want the truth, you are a shill for some method or other .... don't bother to say those things. I've read them so many times before.

I'd like to ask that all members who have been hesitant to post on this section start posting again, and simply do not repond to your posts, unless the tone of said post is civil and adds something helpful to a discussion. That should cut down on the repetition and fruitless arguing. I intend to follow my new rule starting now.

Goodbye for now, Pooka1. Ah, the sense of calm that I feel in saying that!

Writer: I apologize if I have hijacked your thread. I won't do it again. Cheers. B.

[Dingo]

Classic Txmarinemom post

#108 on this page

Background: CD and I are talking about Melatonin and Scoliosis. For some reason this irritates tx and she lashes out at concerned dad.

txmarinemom

How cute you're now so intuitive/cognizant. Look who you've been following and make your own judgement. Who's the expert, CD? If it's Dingo, I'll eat my hardware.

I suspect the hamsters are happy ... drinking (vs. *this). I see you finally *maybe* see the folly of Dingo's posts ...

For YOUR sake, I *hope* so.

To be fair to txmarinemom she's not the only one who resorts to personal attacks and bullying. PNUTTRO, Karen Ocker and LindaRacine do the same thing. Pooka1 argues A LOT but I can't remember her throwing too many direct insults.