tjs@cbdkc1.UUCP ( Tom Stanions) (08/14/85)
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
sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/16/85)
> 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? > Mr. Stanions seems not to be aware of public health and epidemiology, the science whereby "individual testimonials" and disease incidence are translated into useable predictions. The reason for their vehemence in dismissing Stoll's comments was twofold: First and foremost, Stoll was not asking the question "isn't it interesting that granny used aluminum pans and now she has Alzheimers. Is there a link? Can we study this?" Rather, his reasoning was completely bizarre, saying, "Granny warned us of this, and now look at her. She's been 'proved' right." No one should ever treat this statement as making sense. Perhaps it reflects emotion and bereavement, but it's useless as anything other than an individual testimonial. Second, researchers have already been quite active in the field and have ruled out aluminum, especially the tiny amounts found in food prepared in aluminum pans, as having any link to the development of Alzheimers. This comes PRECISELY from the examination of actual Alzheimers patients and their habits, so please do not accuse anyone of "dismissing evidence." -- /Steve Dyer {decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!sdyer sdyer@bbnccv.ARPA
sean@cadre.ARPA (Sean McLinden) (08/17/85)
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!!!!