It outlines patterns of good and bad science talks that are meant to be used as a first-cut method to raise alarms if needed. For example:
GOOD: “It makes claims that can be tested and verified,” and “It is backed up by experiments that have generated enough data to convince other experts of its legitimacy.”
BAD: “Has failed to convince many mainstream scientists of its truth,” and “Comes from overconfident fringe experts.”
These are then followed by a series of “red flag” topics and behaviors that, again, should serve as a warning that what the speaker is saying may not be legit: They are selling a product, they claim to have privileged knowledge, they demand TEDx presents “both sides of an issue.” (That last one is a biggie: In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is “reality” and the other is “nonsense.”)
I thought this was useful.
Can CCSVI be tested and verified? (Yes. Especially with gold-standard venography plus IVUS, and autopsy studies.)
Has there been enough data to convince other experts? (No, but the research is underway. I would suggest that by 'experts,' this means interventional radiologists, not neurologists. ISET and SIR are good gatherings of vascular experts.)
The concern is valid that it may be less legit if a product is being sold. It's a reason to want CCSVI angioplasty to be conducted in academic hospitals, not clinics, and especially not medical tourism.
Are there claims of privileged knowledge? Ok, the difficulties with the criteria for the doppler ultrasound falls under this umbrella. It's why other imaging tools would be better for the research.
Are there two sides to the CCSVI controversy? We're seeing two sides presented in the media. Sensationalized.
Is CCSVI coming from overconfident fringe experts? When I first started following CCSVI in Nov 2009, the names to know were Dr. Zamboni, Dr. Dake, Dr. Simka, and Dr. Zivadinov. Now I can't even list all the names of those researching CCSVI.