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