Why We Removed the Dr. Berkson Thread

[Cindy]

Hi,

We took down the thread about Dr. Berkson until we have a chance to check into his background, credentials and treatments.  Given this is a holiday weekend, we won't be able to do that until next week.  

We appreciate your patience and wish each of you a very Happy Thanksgiving!!

Cindy Thompson
MedHelp

[Trish77]

I wasn't interpreting for you.  I was interpreting for me.  I was stating my own opinion. I'm not interested in thinking for you.  I would like the right to think for myself without MedHelp choosing to do it for me.  A number of people on the thread requested that the discussion be allowed to stand so that THEY could think for THEMselves and interpret the information presented for THEMselves.  

The comments that were abusive came from both the pros and the cons of that discussion.  One-sided of you to mention the one and not the other - not very objective.  Frankly, the way someone comments on a subject is also informative and either lends credibility or detracts from it.  

MedHelp can examine his credentials - however, it's not going to matter all that much.  I would hazard to say that the majority of us wanted to examine his credentials for ourselves which is why we wanted the thread to continue, the discussion to continue, asked questions that we wanted answers to and did not want to be bullied out of the discussion by posters who want to deny us the ability to engage in a discussion we found useful.  The comments made by posters that were inappropriate were addressed by various other posters in that thread.  I think we can handle it.

I think it's inappropriate that a small group of posters aggressively try to prevent discussion that a number of posters clearly want to engage in and have stated as much.

[portann]

I haven't followed this discussion but If I couldn't do traditional tx successfully, I would certainly like to hear first-hand from members about other avenues of potential benefit.

I have no idea why the naysayers are so adamant but a cursory look on Janis or Wiki do not raise red flags that I can see. Am I missing something?

Here's what I found about Berkson in Janis and Friends, which says Berkson is published in a German medical journal, presumably something not many of us here can claim:

http://www.janis7hepc.com/Nutrition/Berkson%20Clinical%20Study.htm

(He is an M.D. and holds a Ph.D in biological science.)

And a cursory look in Wiki states:

"The first human clinical studies using alpha-lipoic acid (ALA) in the United States were conducted by Fredrick C. Bartter, Burton M. Berkson, and associates from the National Institutes of Health in the 1970’s.[9][10][11] They administered intravenous ALA to 79 people with acute and severe liver damage at various medical centers across the United States and 75 recovered full liver function. Drs. Bartter and Berkson were appointed by the FDA as principal investigators for this therapeutic agent as an investigational drug and Dr. Berkson went on to use it successfully for the treatment of chronic liver disease (viral hepatitis, autoimmune hepatitis, etc).[12]"

I think that discussing him without malice is something most members are capable of doing.  I do hope that MH restores the thread minus the malicious posts, if there were any.

For one thing, I'd love to see the thread and exercise my own judgement.

Susan

[Frank J. Perrotta]

I would like to see the alt discussion remain on MedHelp.

The trad MedGurus have destroyed my life, and some in that group have apologized for such, and we should be able to discuss openly alt treatments.

I went thru some "mad" alt suggestions including a medical intuitive and understand the desire to protect against quackery...

BUT I also have found this group of incredibly knowledgeable members very helpful in an open discussion toward MedHELP. And lord knows I need help. MWAH.

[jdwithhcv]

Actually, I made no statement of any kind about abusive comments on the thread that is the subject of Cindy's post.  One sided?  I think not.

[FlGuy]

I wonder if the vetting of Dr. Berkson stated above is similar to the processes of vetting for MedHelp's advertisers.

[Willy50]

Ha; I originally posted this in the wrong thread; some other thread in which MedHelp was being skewered.  ; )  For continuity's sake, I more or less recopied it here.  (I don't really know where I would draw the line, but none have been drawn in the past, to my knowledge.  For instance, colloidal silver threads get responded to and discredited without any moderation actions. -Willy)
-------------------------------------------

Cindy, thank you for NOT deleting the thread.  I would like to see it returned.

Thank you for sharing your reason for the action and that it was merely under consideration and not a final action.
-------------------------------------------------
This is from your terms of use;
"Specifically, MedHelp, its licensors, and its suppliers make no representations or warranties about the following:

    * The accuracy, reliability, completeness, correctness, or timeliness of the Content, software, text, graphics, links, or communications provided on or through the use of the MedHelp Site.
    * The satisfaction of government regulations requiring disclosure of information on prescription drug products with regard to the Content contained on the MedHelp Site.
    * The accuracy, completeness or correctness, timeliness, or usefulness of any opinions, advice, services, or other information provided through the MedHelp Site.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why enter into evaluation of content when you *clearly* state that you make NO representations about the content?

Further, if something experimental is banned from the forum such as experimental treatments, supplements, herbs, etcetera, how would you distinguish that from clinical trials?  What if the complained about drug or treatment is also in trials or will be?
I think you are on a slippery slope when you attempt to determine what we read or post.  Boards are for the free exchange of information, within the bounds of your terms of use agreement.  I think you are going to have a lot of problems trying to word some boundaries on what is allowed and what is not.  That will mean more problems, more disagreements, confusion;
more threads like this one.  ; )

In allowing a few complainers to determine what you allow for content you are allowing the few to determine what the majority will read.  I cannot believe that it could be so easy for a person or group of people to in effect prohibit a topic, forbid a discussion of a therapy, and in effect, determine what members can and can't read.

Medicine and medical knowledge is dynamic and constantly changing.  I don't feel you have any business determining what people post or comment on as long as they follow your rules.
We know it is experimental.  We have read your disclaimer.  You have been asked by many here to be less proactive in deleting threads.  Oddly some of those same people may be in support the forum moderation team becoming the benevolent and all knowing patriarch that determines what we may read.

Next, after banning experimental treatment topics could come banning any topic that undercuts current approved FDA approved treatments.  More good intentions......
(yes, we know you don't delete those threads because you only allow FDA approved TX.  You delete them because members *complain.*  The end result however is still the same; homogeneous, unoffensive, redacted content.)

best,
Willy