DC's Improbable Science

Truth, falsehood and evidence: investigations of dubious and dishonest science

DC's Improbable Science header image 2

Yale bans video -but then sees sense

August 19th, 2008 · 7 Comments

Jump to follow-up

My original piece on Integrative Baloney@Yale was posted on May 16th, after I got back from a visit there. The talk I gave there included a short video. My movie, Integrative baloney@Yale, was made entirely from clips taken from Yale’s own YouTube movies which showed something approaching three hours of its “1st Annual Scientific [sic] symposium”, entitled “Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Evidence for Integration”. I had merely interspersed a few titles to show the worst scientific absurdities of that rather pathetic event. YouTube removed the movie last week.

You can download the movie here [15.8 Mb, wmv file].

It should soon reappear on YouTube (actually it took over a month and several reminders, but eventually  they kept their word in the end).

Yale’s lawyers had written to YouTube, to have my movie removed. I guess if you have no evidence, all you can do is resort to law to suppress the views of those who have the temerity to point out that the emperor is naked. Last week it was New Zealand Chiropractors’ Association Inc. This week the rather more substantial Yale University. We live in interesting times.

This is what I got on 15th August.

Dear Member

This is to notify you that we have removed or disabled access to the following material as a result of a third-party notification by Yale University, Yale School of Medicine (CME) claiming that this material is infringing:

Integrative baloney@Yale: http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=HEl2fhfGBdI

Please Note: Repeated incidents of copyright infringement will result in the deletion of your account and all videos uploaded to that account. In order to prevent this from happening

If you clicked on the link you saw

“This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Yale University, Yale School of Medicine (CME)”

It seems that Yale’s Continuing Medical Education (CME) department was responsible.

Of course Yale is correct. I expect they own the copyright of their original movies, but they are not what I posted. I would argue that selecting 6 minutes from a 3 hour original amounts to “fair quotation”, no different from when one cites a short passage from somebody else’s book or paper. Perhaps Yale was just a bit jealous that my movie was getting viewed a lot more times than theirs. Or perhaps they were a bit peeved that a Google search for “Yale Integrative Medicine” produced my movie as #2 (add the word movie and I was #1).

My movie seems to me to be fair comment from someone who is a pharmacologist by trade. Apparently it didn’t seem that way to the apparatchiks of Yale Medical School, who seem to think that academic arguments should be settled by paying lawyers to suppress views they don’t like, rather than by rational discussion.

It’s interesting that the three hours of Yale’s own movie have also vanished from YouTube. Could that be because they realise that the remarks made at the meeting are so embarrassing intellectually that it would be better not to make them public? Actually, no.

What does Yale CME say?

Rather than publishing this straight away, I thought it better to delve a bit further into what had happened. I lodged an appeal with YouTube and I wrote to Ronald J. Vender, MD (Associate Dean, YSM Clinical Affairs, CMO, Yale Medical Group, Medical Director, Yale CME ). The outcome was rather interesting.

First, it turned out that the original posting of the three hours of the symposium proceedings on YouTube was itself unauthorised, which is why it suffered the same fate as my movie.

Dr Vender told me that he is new to the job, and didn’t know about the incident. What’s more surprising, he said he “did not know an Integrative Program even existed at Yale”. That does seem a bit odd indeed for an Associate Dean of Clinical Affairs.

However, Dr Vender turned out to be a very reasonable man,.After some amiable correspondence over the weekend, it took him only a day and a half to sort the matter out. After talking to Yale’s attorney, he wrote on 19th August, thus

“The University attorney believes that there is in fact a difference between the initial unauthorized filming of an entire conference as opposed to quoting from that conference. Therefore, she has agreed to withdraw the injunction that has been imposed on your use of the material. YouTube will be contacted.”

That’s good for me, but it isn’t the main thing. The movie would doubtless have been seen by more people if Yale had tried to maintain the ban. Much more impressively, Dr Vender also said

“As for this particular program, I will be speaking with Dr Belitsky and the program directors to encourage them to adopt a more critical view of the scientific basis for claims made by proponents of CAM. They will also be encouraged to develop a future program that includes faculty who have opposing points of view.”

It remains to be seen what actually happens, but so far, so good.

What next?

The removal of the original videos of the meeting is understandable because they were pretty embarrassing to Yale. But can that be the real reason? I was told that it is simply because their posting was “unauthorised”. But Yale Continuing Medical Education still boasts about the meeting on their own web site. They describe the meeting as “successful”, but if they are so proud of it, why remove the video from YouTube whether it was authorised or not? We are told

“The symposium, accredited for 7.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits, began what is hoped to be a long tradition at the Yale School of Medicine.”

They give credits for such miseducation?

Dr Katz’s phrase “we need a more fluid concept of evidence” now gets about 148 hits in Google, since I first helped him to publicise it.

Two of the six “learning objectives” that Yale CME lists for this symposium are particularly revealing.

  • Describe therapeutic benefits and recent scientific evidence supporting a wide range of safe and practical complementary treatments, including acupuncture, massage, yoga, meditation, nutrition and exercise
  • Identify and discuss barriers to CAM use, practice and research, as well as propose ways of overcoming these barriers

‘Describe the evidence supporting complementary treatments’? But don’t on any account describe the much more substantial evidence that does not support them? A question (or “learning objective”) put in this loaded way is the very antithesis of education.

Equally the second ‘learning objective’ carries with it the assumption that CAM works, otherwise why would anyone want to overcome the barriers to it?

This is indoctrination, not education. It betrays everything that a university should stand for.

Let’s hope the new head of CME, the admirable Dr Vender, succeeds in doing something about it

Follow-up

Success!. Well I think it is success. On 26 November 2008, the admirable Dr Vender wrote to me as follows.

“I do not know if another CAM/Integrative Medicine program is planned at Yale. However, based on the new ACCME standards, this program does not fulfil the standards for receiving CME accreditation (by my interpretation of the standards). At least one of last year’s program directors has been notified already.”

Print Friendly

Tags: Academia · acupuncture · anti-oxidant · Anti-science · antioxidant · antiscience · antoxidant · badscience · blogosphere · CME · Continuing med education · Dangerous advice · David Katz · defamation · evidence · herbalism · homeopathy · intimidation · science · supplements · Uncategorized · Universities · Yale

7 responses so far ↓

  • 1 Acleron // Aug 20, 2008 at 01:40

    Well done.

    That video was excellent, and only a few minutes from several hours. Your stamina needs congratulations.

  • 2 jdc325 // Aug 20, 2008 at 09:15

    “Apparently it didn’t seem that way to the apparatchiks of Yale Medical School, who seem to think that academic arguments should be settled by paying lawyers to suppress views they don’t like, rather than by rational discusson.”
    Does this legal obsession count as an epidemic? There’s a long, long list of people who have tried to do this. Coincidentally, rather a lot of them seem to work in the field of Alternative Medicine.
    Well done to Dr Vender though for speaking to Yale’s attorney – and here’s hoping that those in charge of the CME program have been sufficiently encouraged to “adopt a more critical view of the scientific basis for claims made by proponents of CAM”.

  • 3 Mojo // Aug 20, 2008 at 15:08

    DC wrote, “”Describe the evidence supporting complementary treatments”? But don’t on any account describe the much more substantial evidence that does not support them.”

    It’s the same approach adopted by Wiki4CAM.

  • 4 Ulrich Berger // Aug 20, 2008 at 18:33

    The CME’s report on their symposium also states that
    “Workshops included the use of [...] a Labyrinth Walking Mediation (sic) to Integrate Body, Mind and Spirit”.
    Well, since mediation, according to Wikipedia, is a “form of alternative dispute resolution”, it is at least something alternative…

  • 5 jdc325 // Aug 20, 2008 at 20:39

    I find the phrase ‘absence of evidence is not evidence of absence’ incredibly annoying, mainly because of the context in which it is normally used. I very much enjoyed reading the final slide in that video and I may have to steal your line on absence of evidence.

  • 6 David Colquhoun // Aug 20, 2008 at 21:04

    Yes it does seem to be an indication of the intellectual standards of woo-meisters that the trot out endlessly that infuriating self-evident truism “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”.

    Have they never read about the power of tests, type 1 and 2 errors? Well probably not. If they had then they would find an honest job.

  • 7 Sili // Aug 20, 2008 at 21:13

    It would seem someone at Yale has had a change of heart: “This video is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Yale University, Yale School of Medicine (CME)”.

    Perhaps some should check ‘dr’ Fluid’s internet activity.

You must log in to post a comment.