Talk:Forest Tennant

Rapid Eye Test Kit
This I don't even get. According to this, "U.S. District Judge Joseph Bellipanni, armed with the university's own statistics about the test, concluded that the examination was wrong 97% to 98% of the time". But: I didn't feel I could use that quote, so I chose another, which just characterized the judge as saying the test was "extremely inadequate". But I wonder about even that -- either the judge, or the LA Times, or me, has a strange understanding of statistical terminology; if it's the judge, I wonder if he's qualified to rule on these things at all (or even cook breakfast at a lumber camp). But he is judge, and the LA Times is the LA Times, so I guess we have to go with what they say. Herostratus (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) How is that even possible? This is very much worse than random chance.
 * 2) If it is true, then why don't they just reverse the results and get 97% to 98% accuracy?

Not a good article
"Whatever his personality is," an Orange County physician once said [of Tennant], "his work is what really is important." That's true, and my impression is that he's an able and energetic person who came out of nowhere, grabbed life with both hands, is very expert in a difficult and fraught subject, and has done a lot of good for people. He's maybe overreached himself a bit in a couple of difficult positions and gotten into hot water, and of course that's what makes the papers.

Being in chronic pain is horrible, and doctors don't want to help. Pain isn't something you can can see, is hard to treat, is not a lucrative or glamorous field, and the feds are always looking over your shoulder with the War On Drugs stuff. Who needs it. So people can't get treatment and live in pain and some kill themselves. Tennant has grabbed this bull by the horns and that's admirable.

It doesn't come across in the article and this is just the sort of thing we get hammered for, and I'd like to see the article improved, but I have to go with the sources we have. Sure there's Zig Ziglar but he's, well, Zig Ziglar. I'd like to see more on his pain work but I'm not finding sources for that. Herostratus (talk) 18:45, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's a couple quotes:

I don't know how to work those into the article, though. Not without balancing them with other, less sanguine quotes. And they're out there. This Sports Illustrated article is pretty damning. But a physician who once worked for Tennant disagrees. "I consider him unethical and hypocritical," he says. "I found that his medical practice was guided by what money could be brought in." and so on. But all anonymous. Except Gordon Griffith. Gordon Griffith was sued by Tennant for harrasment -- alleged death threats, 3AM phone calls. Hung jury. But hung 8-4 for the plaintiff. Oh, and Griffith was "retained [by SI] as a consultant in the early stages of preparing this report". Oh really. How is that ethical? It's not ethical. It stinks.

All this is why it's a shame that this article was ever created. Herostratus (talk) 04:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)