Company of heroes opposing fronts validating error
I would like to point out once again that SCIENCE IS SELF-CORRECTING. Recently, I had a message from one of my students, who is a leading dermatologist in India doing innovative research.
“I always wondered when I used to listen to you during my student days and respected your views all along.
Many such glaring criminal activities have come to light now in the field of “Evidence-based medicine” of today! I hope you are blaming the individual trials and not the method.
After 25 years follow-up of one of the largest-ever studies of risk factors (which are being sold to the gullible public day in, day out as silent killers), the MRFIT study (Multiple Risk Factor Interventional Trial) observed that: “In conclusion, we have shown that it is possible to apply an intensive long-term intervention program against three coronary risk factors, high blood pressure, cholesterol and smoking with considerable success in terms of risk factor changes.
The overall results do not show a beneficial effect on CHD or total mortality from this multiple risk factors intervention trial.
Now are you accusing the foundation itself to be flawed? In fact, if I could, I would make this book a compulsory subject for all school students! It’s not that if we apply the latest, cutting edge physical laws, then automatically all the S. So, if you really have some ‘new evidence base for health and illness’ then please put them forward for peer review. This is no different from the concept of the “Ancient Wisdom” (this term itself is a fallacy- something ancient need not necessarily be wise) involving the “phlegms”, “biles”, “imbalances” and various other fanciful words. Let’s say someone is willing to sponsor a regular health checkup, will you suggest to decline it? That is a statement that is condescendingly nonsensical. NOT getting a regular health checkup is definitely more dangerous than getting one regularly. Just imagine yourself with a tumor or a brain aneurysm waiting to burst! And, I wonder how we can know if someone is healthy or not, without taking recourse to some scientific method?
I agree that the “Big, Evil” Pharma companies might indulge in these kinds of shady activities. But when a Professor like you doesn’t understand it, how can we expect the general crowd to? You have merely rehashed those ancient concepts of biles and phlegms into a new-age version of “communication and sync between molecules”. if you can back it up with evidence and how it can be falsified, then it will be useful. Even though both Claude Bernard and Louis Pasteur did note that the “terrain is more important than the seed” we have gone the whole hog on the seed, risk factors, and what have you. M.s (including Ayurveda) might talk about “strengthening the immune system” but what do they offer? If there is a way these ancient systems can help then it is by pointing out these “simple methods” that the ancient systems may have found out by trial and error, so that science can analyze it scientifically, identify the exact component of the concoction that is effective in alleviating the symptoms, the therapeutic characteristics, the adverse effects, ceiling dose, antidote in case of over dosage, and any safer alternative for the effective individual component including a synthetic form. The common man will have the doubt as to how he/she could know about health.
No wonder people tried to come up with all kinds of “alternatives”.