Apr 15 2004
Dear Readers:We have been intrigued lately by interchanges on the web regarding the appropriateness and the usefulness of information on Mary Shomon's website.
We are a doctor-nurse team and have each been in practice for over 30 years.
Richard is a Harvard graduate, trained at University of Pennsylvania Medical School, who did research at the National Institutes of Health with Nobel Prize winner Marshall Nirenberg. Since his additional training with the US Public Health Service, he has focused his practice on health education and preventive medicine, serving as Adjunct Clinical Faculty of the Medical Center UC SF.
Karilee trained at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and the University of Maryland, where she received her RN/BS, then completed a Master's and PhD level courses as well. She has been Assistant Professor of Nursing at Florida Atlantic University, with two nursing specialty certifications.
We have written numerous articles for the lay public, have published 7 health related books for the mass market, and are currently under contract with Penguin NY to finish our next health project. We've been invited to appear on numerous television and radio programs related to health education for thyroid issues. We have taught a dozen thyroid-related seminars in cities across the US for physicians and practitioners. Evaluating health information for its potential benefit to the general public has been our passion for many years.
It is our opinion that the many different needs for health information are best served by the eclectic collection represented in today's open market and especially the worldwide web. Some people simply need to know where to buy specific vitamins they've heard of. Others need a high-quality second-opinion about a serious thyroid cancer recurrence. This wide divergence can best be met with a variety of opinions and options from which the consumer can choose according to his or her beliefs, experience, and inclination.
What makes this country beautiful is our freedom of speech, and our freedom of choice. In every arena, we need to dedicate ourselves to preserving these liberties.
In our practice, we have encountered patients over the years who have tried conventional therapies, and conventional doctors, with very little success. Likewise, we have encountered patients who have tried alternative therapies, and alternative doctors, with very large success. We've seen people improve with both maneuvers, and many in between.
We have found that it is important to know when to try an unconventional approach, and when to adhere to strict orthodoxy. Mary's website helps to inform consumers so they can make such choices with input from their practitioners. We have also seen that people improve most readily when working with a team of practitioners, each of whom is respectful, knowledgeable, and open to the opinions of others, especially to the person seeking care.
In fact, to us, this is part of the exciting Art of Medicine, blending the best of many options, and many points of view, for optimal results.
Each person's situation is so unique - and so special - that the greatest challenge seems to us to be that of pairing up the person with his or her own best information, practitioner, and therapies.
Frequently we have seen that a certain practitioner, or group, feels that they have cornered the market on the truth - for everyone. This is just not possible. The health field is very large, with thyroid information alone comprising a staggering amount of data. The medical doctors, and the researchers worldwide, do not have striking consistency in their approaches and protocols.
We know one woman who had four different endocrinologists give her four completely different recommendations for how to handle a thyroid nodule. With this kind of diversity of opinion, even among the university experts, it seems reasonable to allow people who are of good will to provide a blend of health information for the consumers to select from.
Generally, in the medical literature, comments coming from one person about another are respectful, civil, and appropriate. In fact, we know of only a few research papers where this was not the case. Even though the research seemed rigorous and well-intentioned, we questioned the veracity of both the data and conclusions because the writer used sarcasm and name-calling, which have no place in scientific discourse.
