scorpion wrote:Please take heed. Sorry for the long post but I think it is worth it. According to Robert Park PHD these are the seven warning signs of Bogus Science.
1. The discoverer pitches the claim directly to the media.
The integrity of science rests on the willingness of scientists to expose new ideas and findings to the scrutiny of other scientists. Thus, scientists expect their colleagues to reveal new findings to them initially. An attempt to bypass peer review by taking a new result directly to the media, and thence to the public, suggests that the work is unlikely to stand up to close examination by other scientists.
Some scientific claims avoid even the scrutiny of reporters by appearing in paid commercial advertisements. A health-food company marketed a dietary supplement called Vitamin O in full-page newspaper ads. Vitamin O turned out to be ordinary saltwater.
2. The discoverer says that a powerful establishment is trying to suppress his or her work.
The idea is that the establishment will presumably stop at nothing to suppress discoveries that might shift the balance of wealth and power in society. Often, the discoverer describes mainstream science as part of a larger conspiracy that includes industry and government.
3. The scientific effect involved is always at the very limit of detection.
4. Evidence for a discovery is anecdotal.
If modern science has learned anything in the past century, it is to distrust anecdotal evidence. Because anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science. The most important discovery of modern medicine is not vaccines or antibiotics, it is the randomized double-blind test, by means of which we know what works and what doesn't. Contrary to the saying, "data" is not the plural of "anecdote."
5. The discoverer says a belief is credible because it has endured for centuries.
There is a persistent myth that hundreds or even thousands of years ago, long before anyone knew that blood circulates throughout the body, or that germs cause disease, our ancestors possessed miraculous remedies that modern science cannot understand. Much of what is termed "alternative medicine" is part of that myth.
Ancient folk wisdom, rediscovered or repackaged, is unlikely to match the output of modern scientific laboratories.
6. The discoverer has worked in isolation.
The image of a lone genius who struggles in secrecy in an attic laboratory and ends up making a revolutionary breakthrough is a staple of Hollywood's science-fiction films, but it is hard to find examples in real life. Scientific breakthroughs nowadays are almost always syntheses of the work of many scientists.
7. The discoverer must propose new laws of nature to explain an observation.
A new law of nature, invoked to explain some extraordinary result, must not conflict with what is already known. If we must change existing laws of nature or propose new laws to account for an observation, it is almost certainly wrong.
But as I finished the list, I realized that in our increasingly technological society, spotting voodoo science is a skill that every citizen should develop.
Re:
Point 1> This may have been true in the old days or in a common disease everyone could find out about this about. But in MS (a not high population of people have) to get the word out MAYBE the media is necessary anymore. Also, Dr. Zamboni is not necessarily making MONEY off of this, I could see in cases like your Vitamin O ... this is not the same. Argument doesn't fit. So are you telling me the lung cancer drug being touted on news channels in the US (CNN/FoxNews) is junk science because its researchers put it in the media any more than CCSVI?
NOPE.
Point 2> I don't think neurologists are trying to "stop" CCSVI. I think people think that because they go to their neurologists and this isn't what they've learned for 30 years+ so they can't intelligently speak about it. Aside from that ... it is what it is. The drug companies however, have never dealt with IRs but they better get on board and prove their drugs help post-CCSVI or they might be in trouble. Again, invalid argument.
Point 3> Everything with MS is almost at the limit of detection. Can you tell me someone with MS feels pain by looking at them? Or feels numbness? Nope ... so the whole MS theory is at the limit of detection. I guess MS is junk science (it seems for the last 70 years since EAE theory came about it has been) ... again, argument invalid.
Point 4> See point 3 ... same thing. I can tell you (even though I don't have MS) today my legs hurt because I ran the other day. Go ahead test me and tell me how you can "prove" my legs hurt? And by the time you test them or figure out which test is significant in a few days (if I don't run again) ... they probably won't hurt. Again, argument against CCSVI is invalid.
Point 5> A lot of "scientists" thought the earth was round long before it was actually proved to be round. Besides your modern drugs can't prove they work or don't work. There is no true test of this anyway. The only way to tell if drugs work or not would be to have the same person cloned (test them with the drug in the clone, and don't test the drug on the non-clone at the same time doing the same things in life) ... MS is unique to each individual ... so trials are flawed in the first place. Point invalid ...
Point 6> Jonas Salk cured polio ... he worked on his own. Hmmmm ... I guess that was junk science because he worked alone (even though it's been proved years later through more research). Fine how about Louis Pasteur? Point invalid.
Point 7> There is nothing about MS that is "law", just ask any neurologist a litany of questions and see how many "we don't knows" you get. Point invalid.
Scorpion, I don't know if you and your ilk (Lyon, Concerned, PatientX and a few others) have MS or not ... but NEVER get the CCSVI treatment, and let EVERYONE ELSE GET IT ... we'll see who is better off.
Thanks for playing.
