“A groundbreaking 2009 report from the National Academy of Sciences finally drew the curtain back to reveal that the wizardry of forensics was more art than science. The report assessed forensic science’s methods and developed recommendations to increase validity and reliability among many of its disciplines.”
“The review found “no discernible convincing effects beyond placebo” and concluded “there was no reliable evidence from research in humans that homeopathy was effective for treating the range of health conditions considered”. ”
“Some people have felt relief from homeopathy, but feeling relief is not the same as proving that something is scientifically valid as medication. Theplacebo effect is a very real thing, and that’s all homeopathic medications are: expensive placebos.”
“We like to imagine that knowledge advances fact upon dispassionate fact to reveal precise and irrefutable truths. But there is hardly a better example of just how messy and emotional science can be than Wegener’s discovery of the vast, turbulent forces moving within the earth’s crust. As often happens when confronted with difficult new ideas, the establishment joined ranks and tore holes in his theories, mocked his evidence and maligned his character. It might have been the end of a lesser man, but as with the vicious battles over topics ranging from Darwinian evolution to climate change, the conflict ultimately worked to the benefit of scientific truth.”
“A debate has been recently published in the British Medical Journal about whether doctors should practice homoeopathy alongside evidence-based medicine. The debate came out in response to a study from the Australian Government’s National Health and Medical Research Council, which was released this March. It concluded that there was no reliable evidence that homoeopathy was effective in treating a range of health conditions.”
The issue of has taken on increasing significance of late. Wrapped up in this issue are several key issues:
- What is the role of professional organizations and authorities in enforcing certain practices and ethical standards?
- How do we define and distinguish between science and pseudoscience?
- What does “evidence based” practice mean?
- How do we determine “truth” in the natural sciences and in particular, the medical sciences?
- Upon what should ethical standards in medicine be based? How should those standards be enforced? Who should do the enforcing?
“The AMA will look at creating ethical guidelines for physicians in the media, write a report on how doctors may be disciplined for violating medical ethics through their press involvement, and release a public statement denouncing the dissemination of dubious medical information through the radio, TV, newspapers, or websites.”
An interesting debate about the nature of science and two TED talks that were removed form the TED website. You can read the debate and watch the talks in the link below.
“Acupuncture was developed in a pre-scientific culture, before anything significant was understood about biology, the normal functioning of the human body or disease pathology. The healing practices of the time were part of what is called philosophy-based medicine, to be distinguished from modern science-based medicine. Philosophy-based systems began with a set of ideas about health and illness and based their treatments on those ideas.”
“Over the next decade, aided and abetted by useful idiots in the media, by British newspapers and other media that sensationalized the story, and the antivaccine movement, which hailed Wakefield as a hero, Wakefield managed to drive MMR vaccination rates in the U.K. below the level of herd immunity, from 93% to 75% (and as low as 50% in some parts of London). As a result Wakefield has been frequently sarcastically “thanked” for his leadership role in bringing the measles back to the U.K. to the point where, fourteen years after measles had been declared under control in the U.K., it was in 2008 declared endemic again.”