Guest guest Posted August 4, 2001 Report Share Posted August 4, 2001 I just finished reading WIdmark's article entitled, " Faq on Weight loss surgery. " I had to write to the group after reading it. I can understand one having a contrary opinion about the efficacy of Weight los surgery. And I can agree that perhaps people should view it with extreme caution and not get it as if it is the new surgery " du jour " after Carnie reported on how it changed her life. However, if one is going to write an article and purport it to be based on facts, not just speculation and opinion, then the article must pass muster in the scholarly community. This article would have to receive a failing grade. First and foremost, on page 12 of Widmark's article, she lists a myriad of side effects that can occur after WLS such as Lupus, restless leg syndrome, liver damage, overworked kidneys, etc. I for one would not have the surgery if these were the possible side effects and I would thank Widmark for drawing my attention to them. So I looked for footnotes in the body of her paper to see her sources for citing these side effects and there were none. Next, i looked at the end of her article for her references looked to references and there were NO REFERENCES for any of the side effects she listed on page 12. Now, my son is in 9th grade and if he did this on a term paper he would receive a " D " . Further, in law school, if I wrote a paper and stated a fact that I did not footnote or reference in some way, I too would fail. This is simply not acceptable in the world outside of the National Enquirer or TV Guide. I am frustrated because I would be open to learning about the negative aspects of WLS, but I cannot view this article as anything other than a biased opinion based on speculation. Further, much of Widmark's premises are incorrect. For example, on page 14 of the article she sets up a chart comparing the benefits of a low fat/daily exercise routine with the benefits of weight loss surgery. Naturally, the benefits of diet and exercise outweigh the benefits of surgery. Who can argue with that? Any person will readily admit that if one could diet and exercise it is much better than a surgery to re-wire ones anatomy. This surgery is undertaken because one cannot successful diet and exercise to keep the weight of. It is done as a last resort because one will either have the surgery and all the side effects of the surgery or remain morbidly obese. So the proper chart should compare the risks and benefits of remaining morbidly obese with the risks and benefits of having the surgery. I could go on in critiquing this article, but I won't. Suffice it to say, that in my search for information on WLS, I must go to sources other than to Sue Widmark. Her article simply does not intellectually pass scrutiny. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2001 Report Share Posted August 4, 2001 I just finished reading WIdmark's article entitled, " Faq on Weight loss surgery. " I had to write to the group after reading it. I can understand one having a contrary opinion about the efficacy of Weight los surgery. And I can agree that perhaps people should view it with extreme caution and not get it as if it is the new surgery " du jour " after Carnie reported on how it changed her life. However, if one is going to write an article and purport it to be based on facts, not just speculation and opinion, then the article must pass muster in the scholarly community. This article would have to receive a failing grade. First and foremost, on page 12 of Widmark's article, she lists a myriad of side effects that can occur after WLS such as Lupus, restless leg syndrome, liver damage, overworked kidneys, etc. I for one would not have the surgery if these were the possible side effects and I would thank Widmark for drawing my attention to them. So I looked for footnotes in the body of her paper to see her sources for citing these side effects and there were none. Next, i looked at the end of her article for her references looked to references and there were NO REFERENCES for any of the side effects she listed on page 12. Now, my son is in 9th grade and if he did this on a term paper he would receive a " D " . Further, in law school, if I wrote a paper and stated a fact that I did not footnote or reference in some way, I too would fail. This is simply not acceptable in the world outside of the National Enquirer or TV Guide. I am frustrated because I would be open to learning about the negative aspects of WLS, but I cannot view this article as anything other than a biased opinion based on speculation. Further, much of Widmark's premises are incorrect. For example, on page 14 of the article she sets up a chart comparing the benefits of a low fat/daily exercise routine with the benefits of weight loss surgery. Naturally, the benefits of diet and exercise outweigh the benefits of surgery. Who can argue with that? Any person will readily admit that if one could diet and exercise it is much better than a surgery to re-wire ones anatomy. This surgery is undertaken because one cannot successful diet and exercise to keep the weight of. It is done as a last resort because one will either have the surgery and all the side effects of the surgery or remain morbidly obese. So the proper chart should compare the risks and benefits of remaining morbidly obese with the risks and benefits of having the surgery. I could go on in critiquing this article, but I won't. Suffice it to say, that in my search for information on WLS, I must go to sources other than to Sue Widmark. Her article simply does not intellectually pass scrutiny. __________________________________________________ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.