Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site cbdkc1.UUCP Path: utzoo!decvax!harpo!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbdkc1!tjs From: tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Testimonials Message-ID: <1092@cbdkc1.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Aug-85 10:46:47 EDT Article-I.D.: cbdkc1.1092 Posted: Wed Aug 14 10:46:47 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 17-Aug-85 05:26:23 EDT Reply-To: tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) Distribution: na Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Columbus Lines: 45 Note the responses to the following testimonial by two of the nets pro-conventional writters: In article <2015@ukma.UUCP> wws@ukma.UUCP (Bill Stoll) writes: > My grand mother used to tell me that Aluminum Pans were poisonous. > (she died at age 88 in full possession of her faculties). > My mother laughed at my grandmother's foolishness and flaunted her > new set of Aluminum pans. ... now 69 years old and has Alzheimer's. > It seems the Aluminum Pans weren't such a bargain after all. Oded Feingolds response: > Sir, > That kind of testimonial does not constitute medical evidence, nor > in fact evidence of any other kind. (I happen to know that the real > problem is your maternal grandfather, who carried the genes for > Alzheimer susceptibility...) So don't pan the pans, man. You're > gonna get what you're gonna get. Gordon Banks response: > Of course, isn't it obvious? This kind of reasoning is thought to > account for superstitions. The black cat crossed my path this morning > and now look what happened. It must have been the cause of my trouble. > The human mind looks very hard for cause-and-effect. It tends to > latch onto any convenient cause, especially if it fits some preconceived > notions. Isn't health faddism just a modern superstition? Now the testimonial itself doesn't prove or disprove the aluminum theory. Many testimonials combined do. Not by laboratory study but by real-life experiences. But how is science to advance in the proper direction if the testimonial is given the consideration voiced by these two writers? If each testimonial is trashed out then there is no final workable answer, the inevitable result is a return to the laboratory. Had these writers simply reminded us to use caution and not jump to conclusions then that would appear to be a responsible scientific statement. But to destroy a valid/worthwhile/usable testimonial by connecting black magic and impossible facts to it is hardly scientific. If our approach to helping people is so unscientific, please tell us how does the scientific community research a problem that could take 30-40 years to develop and still include all of lifes variables and use real-live people and help people today? {allegra|ihnp4}!cbdkc1!tjs