So, to make sure this comment is relevant to the topic at hand (ie. medicine, evidence):
What is the prevalence of actual sexual violence, harassment and discrimination against women compared to the incidence of false accusations? I think a preponderance of the evidence shows that the widespread, deep-rooted phenomenon of sexual abuse in our culture is quite real - with dramatic, population-wide health consequences - and not a matter of "mass hysteria," and that one case does not overturn that evidence. I find the attempt to use this one case as political fodder is intellectually dishonest - and evokes more pity than anger.
I was reading these columns for a long time before I subscribed. I hesitated because of the political agenda that ran alongside the rational and helpful discussions of medical evidence. I ultimately decided that the column's general agreement with my own ideas about the uses and misuses of medical evidence and its value to me as a physician caring for patients outweighed my desire not to support the authors' political views - but just barely. At least now I get to comment.
It didn't seem like he was referring to all such accusations as mass hysteria. Just that the reactions based on limited information before the lawsuit played out in this case could be categorized as such.
"Mass hysteria," to me, implies more than one case. It implies a pattern, a cultural phenomenon. And trying to characterize it as a red state/blue state issue also implies a wider scope. Note that the word hysteria itself is inherently mysogynist in its origins and continued use. So we will probably differ on our interpretation of the data here.
The truth in this case is that ruth Kehman, the head of the whitehead at mit should be forced to resign together with all the whitehead board members. Further sabatini should be reinstated, mit/whitehead should pay to set up his lab, and he should receive back pay for the time between his firing ( because that’s what it was) and his future reinstatement. At the same time the complainant who is currently an assistant professor in the biology department at mit should not be given tenure. That would be justice.
So, to make sure this comment is relevant to the topic at hand (ie. medicine, evidence):
What is the prevalence of actual sexual violence, harassment and discrimination against women compared to the incidence of false accusations? I think a preponderance of the evidence shows that the widespread, deep-rooted phenomenon of sexual abuse in our culture is quite real - with dramatic, population-wide health consequences - and not a matter of "mass hysteria," and that one case does not overturn that evidence. I find the attempt to use this one case as political fodder is intellectually dishonest - and evokes more pity than anger.
I was reading these columns for a long time before I subscribed. I hesitated because of the political agenda that ran alongside the rational and helpful discussions of medical evidence. I ultimately decided that the column's general agreement with my own ideas about the uses and misuses of medical evidence and its value to me as a physician caring for patients outweighed my desire not to support the authors' political views - but just barely. At least now I get to comment.
It didn't seem like he was referring to all such accusations as mass hysteria. Just that the reactions based on limited information before the lawsuit played out in this case could be categorized as such.
"Mass hysteria," to me, implies more than one case. It implies a pattern, a cultural phenomenon. And trying to characterize it as a red state/blue state issue also implies a wider scope. Note that the word hysteria itself is inherently mysogynist in its origins and continued use. So we will probably differ on our interpretation of the data here.
The truth in this case is that ruth Kehman, the head of the whitehead at mit should be forced to resign together with all the whitehead board members. Further sabatini should be reinstated, mit/whitehead should pay to set up his lab, and he should receive back pay for the time between his firing ( because that’s what it was) and his future reinstatement. At the same time the complainant who is currently an assistant professor in the biology department at mit should not be given tenure. That would be justice.
To those who object to this content, note that the politics of medicine have always been fair grist for this mill.
Hmmm. Was that double negative (“careful to not avoid”) intentional or a Freudian slip?
I don't find this relevant or consistent with Sensible Medicine. I am afraid Dr. Prasad has his own agenda. Please go back to your usual content.
It’s completely consistent with sensible medicine.
What agenda? Please kindly be specific.
I’m not sure what this has to do with Sensible Medicine. Don’t you have a better place to post this?
You dont decide what one of the founders of this substack writes. You are under no obligation to read.
I’ll comment on whatever I would like to comment on - thank you very much.