On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 03:22:15 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM[at]leukoma.com> wrote:

- quote -


RT... what is going on here is some classic Dr. Gemoules tap-dancing
through reality. Notice what he said above - "I presented several
unbiased statements". On occassion, Dr. Gemoules tries to disguise
his true agenda by posting seemingly unbiased statements. BUT just
because he posts some unbiased messages, never forget that he is
completely biased. To illustrate my meaning, a serial killer doesn't
walk around advertising the fact that they are a serial killer.
Serial killers such as John Wayne Gacy often present themselves as the
nicest people around... in order to lure in their victims... then they
wind up sticking their pal's head in the freezer and torso in a pit
covered by concrete.
In short, be wary of people who try to deceive you. That is why I
mentioned in an earlier e-mail that at least Mason doesn't disguise
what his agenda is.

RT <RTMD24[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in news:RTMD24-
8A4EA6.18050907122004[at]newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com:

- quote -

I presented several unbiased statements, such as a simple description of
the weather, none of which satisfied you. Therefore, you did not get my
point, and that you do not believe that language can be purely descriptive
and objective.

I get your point, which is that nobody is "unbiased," and that no unbiased
presentation of fact is possible, in medicine or in science, and to that I
say you are wrong and I disagree.

The practice of medicine is hardly an exact science, but that has little or
nothing to do with the idea that the results of a treatment can be
described objectively.

I wonder about the agenda of someone who so vigorously obfuscates on this
point, as if to discourage meaningful dialogue.

DrG

RT <RTMD24[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in news:RTMD24-
8A4EA6.18050907122004[at]newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com:

- quote -

I presented several unbiased statements, such as a simple description of
the weather, none of which satisfied you. Therefore, you did not get my
point, and that you do not believe that language can be purely descriptive
and objective.

I get your point, which is that nobody is "unbiased," and that no unbiased
presentation of fact is possible, in medicine or in science, and to that I
say you are wrong and I disagree.

The practice of medicine is hardly an exact science, but that has little or
nothing to do with the idea that the results of a treatment can be
described objectively.

I wonder about the agenda of someone who so vigorously obfuscates on this
point, as if to discourage meaningful dialogue.

DrG

In article <Xns95B8AC3EDE617DrLeukoma[at]207.217.125.201> ,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg[at]leukoma.com> wrote:

- quote -

You "believe" or you "know"? Can "belief" be objective? How does
belief work in science? Isn't belief the sister of faith?

Doctors have to "believe" they are objective, otherwise how could they
treat a patient without taking into consideration his/her whole
being--like his/her emotional state, nutrition, sleep patterns, stress
levels, and the patients' faith in medicine--not just empirical
measurements? Right?

No more on this subject--either you get my point or you don't. I
"believe" that you don't.

- quote -

Sure, but I do endeavor to present both sides of a story as best I
can, and more importantly, present enough information about myself and
the organization I represent so others can make up their own minds
about why or what bias I may demonstrate, whether it be conscious or
subconscious.

I guess the biggest difference between me and some others around this
newsgroup is that I desire to not present a bias. Some others go out
of their way to distort things to fit their bias.

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org

I am not a doctor.

RT <RTMD24[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:RTMD24-BB7729.17222607122004[at]newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com:

- quote -

My point was that a factual statement could be made without bias. In
order to communicate a fact, it is not necessary to clutter it up with
all sorts of sub-propositions. Bias, BTW, means prejudice. The
statement may have been imprecise, but it certainly was not biased.

- quote -

This is nothing but a logical tautology. 100-20 = 80. If a patient was
interested in having LASIK, they may want to know what their chances are
of having a re-operation.

- quote -

I do not know what the law is in Singapore. Perhaps the legal age of
consent is less than 18 years. There have indeed been published results
of LASIK having been performed on "young children," notably in India, for
amblyopia.
- quote -

I disagree. I believe that it is possible to be completely objective.
Unfortunately, most patients do not want their doctor to be completely
objective. They want a "recommendation," or an "opinion," and often in
the absence of an adequate -- I won't say complete -- knowledge of the
facts.
- quote -

Same thing. Each statement may conjure up a different mental image, but
the meaning is the same.
- quote -

These variations do not reflect bias, just different ways of expressing
the same state-of-affairs.
- quote -


DrG

In article <Xns95B897EB55E50DrLeukoma[at]207.217.125.201> ,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg[at]leukoma.com> wrote:

- quote -

To take this to an absurd level now:
- quote -

this statement makes sense, as long as you know what/where Dallas is.
The bias of this author is that he/she makes an assumption that the
reader will know that degrees are in Fahrenheit, otherwise 60 degrees is
absurdly hot. Why not mention the low? Or the fact there were no
clouds?
- quote -

This statement makes sense, but the author shows a certain bias by not
stating: 80% of LASIK patients do not require a re-operation. Same
"fact;" different way of stating it.
- quote -

Same here, XX percent of LASIK patients do not require a re-operation.
- quote -

Makes sense, but is open to interpretation as we saw, whether or not
this refers to young children or their offspring. My bias in reading it
stems on the fact that LASIK is currently contraindicated for children
under the age of 18, and the words "their own" are included, indicating
the stress is on the familial connection rather than age. If the author
had written, "In Singapore, LASIK surgeons have performed LASIK on
children" omitting "their own" then I think the bias for interpretation
would fall on their performing LASIK on young people who are considered
children (under the age of 18).

Whether the author has a bias in this sentence is not clear. the reader
(in case you or I) clearly did/does have bias in our respective
interpretations. More context is needed to determine the author's bias.

- quote -

Does not make sense because that is not what I believe. First of all, I
never said every statement is biased. I did say no one can be
completely objective in their presentation or interpretation of facts or
issues because they are coming from their own personal bias. Being
"exhaustive" is not the issue. Being reflexive is.

For example, there is a difference between these two ways of stating a
"fact."

In Dallas today it was sunny.
In Dallas today it was not cloudy.

Both statements are "true" (supposedly--I'm in NYC where it poured all
day ), but each implies a different bias (kind of like if you see the
glass half full or half empty).

Word choice and placement, even in the scientific community, says a lot
about the bias of the author. Think subtext. Language is not purely the
domain of poetry and literature.

And now back to biased opinions of LASIK....

~RT

RT <RTMD24[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
news:RTMD24-EAF798.15273307122004[at]newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com:

- quote -

I see that some are keen to see bias where none exists.

DrG
- quote -

"It is 60 degrees in Dallas right now." "Ten percent of LASIK patients
require a re-operation." "XX percent of LASIK patients suffer from dry
eye symptoms." How are those "facts" open to interpretation?
- quote -

Then you do not have an M.D.? If you are a philosopher, then you should
be able to clarify your own thoughts and language.
- quote -

It does help to agree on definitions and the meaning of words, now
doesn't it?

DrG

RT <RTMD24[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in news:RTMD24-8F6DF6.15322907122004
[at]newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com:

- quote -

Which of the following statements make sense? Which ones reflect a clear
bias of the author?

"In Dallas today, the high temperature was 60 degrees under sunny skies."

"Ten percent of LASIK patients require a re-operation."

"XX percent of LASIK patients experience dry eyes following their
surgery."

"In Singapore, LASIK surgeons have performed LASIK on their own
children."

"RT thinks that every statement is biased if it is not exhaustive."


DrG

In response to Glenn Hagele's comment, "After more than 20 years of
reviewing "objective" scientific studies,I have come to the conclusion
that the numbers almost never lie, but bias is shown in the analysis."


There is a big difference in how clinical studies are done. This is
well known within all surgical communities. FDA studies require that
surgery and eye exams (in ophthalmology) be separated to eliminate
surgeon bias. They also require multi-site studies to highlight
variations between centers, surgeon abitliy, and to surface any
irregularities. Additionally, the FDA will audit a site to insure that
all tests and all protocols are followed explicitly.

Non-FDA studies are generally not controlled, do not involve multiple
sites, and are not audited. Most pubished and/or presented studies lack
the rigor of an FDA study. As such, many of these studies are viewed
with skepticism unless the audience believes fully in the credibility
of the presenter/surgeon.

The bottom line is that numbers can lie and all in medicine are aware
of that.
WK