Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site cadre.ARPA Path: utzoo!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cadre!sean From: sean@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden) Newsgroups: net.med Subject: Re: Testimonials Message-ID: <489@cadre.ARPA> Date: Fri, 16-Aug-85 22:25:39 EDT Article-I.D.: cadre.489 Posted: Fri Aug 16 22:25:39 1985 Date-Received: Sun, 18-Aug-85 19:53:00 EDT References: <1092@cbdkc1.UUCP> Reply-To: sean@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden) Distribution: na Organization: Decision Systems Lab., University of Pittsburgh Lines: 56 In article <1092@cbdkc1.UUCP> tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) writes: >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? > Don't be so ignorant. Of course the medical community took note of the association between Alzheimer's and aluminum deposits in the brain. But all speculation aside a hard link has not yet been found. (Except by Stoll's relatives who, unfortunately, don't qualify for a Nobel prize because they're not awarded posthumously). The point of the response of the two gentlemen, above, is that anecdote is not sufficient grounds for trying to change lifestyles. Evidence, man, evidence!!!!