Posted: Tue Jun 22, 2010 4:58 pm
I think that being wary of motivations of researchers (MDs or PhDs) is just being prudent. I worked in the "discovery" area of research for many years. It can be very political. In many cases, getting funding to carry on one's research, and therefore, one's livelihood, is part of one's career - it's not an act of devotion to get to the truth - it's usually about publications to survive another year. Also, doctors may end up studying neurology because the couldn't get into something else, like pediatrics. I can totally see how a researcher would subjectively try to find flaws with something that doesn't support what they're "all about".scorpion wrote:When a theory stands on shaky ground people will go to any length to make it more believable. If CCSVI causes MS or leads to an increase in disabilty it is TIME to prove it with science not by posting articles calling the immune theory "zombie science". It is time to stop painting neuros as infidels and drug companies as evil empires in order to validate CCSVI. Since i was diagnosed with MS it has become clear to me there is a small minority of neuros/doctors who do not buy into the immune sysytem theory but posting an article by one of them, once again, does not make CCSVI more real. PROVE to me with logic and scientific testing that CCSVI is real and not by devaluing people and theories. Since apparently Zamboni has the only sure fire way to find CCSVI(red flag in my opinion) I plea to researchers to use his established protocols so that this thing can either be proven or disproven in a scientific manner.
Of course, some researchers are special and willing to break of the beaten path, as we all know!
Also, many MDs are not researchers or have ever participated in research. They will just recommend the commonly accepted therapies without any critical thought of their own. I'm sure we've all met some of them!
The reporting of scientific results is not a black and white science. Study design is always full of subtle or not so subtle variables (cf. the Dutch study with Zamboni's work). If you don't like the implications of the research, it's always easy to poke holes in it.
I guess I'm just putting my support behind the idea of critiquing science and scientists no matter which theory they work towards. I think that it's naive to think that some sort of social intervention is not required to get another possibility fully considered in a world where a researcher's career is entrenched in a particular theory.
