Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Bryan Heit
wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote:
snip

Jeff wrote:

Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
claims with peer-reviewed research.

Jeff


http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm

Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
by David F. Horrobin



Abstract

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review
system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific
research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking
the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.


And this is relevant how? Do you even know what peer-review is? I
actually agree with much of what was written here; having published
several scientific papers I'm well familiar with the peer review system.
And there is no question that some (not all) researchers use their
powers as reviewers to try and achieve their own ends.

In my experience, about 2/3rds of the reviewers provide valid critism
and useful suggestions. These people make the system as valuable as it
is - a second, new mind to find your holes and make the study better.
The other third uses their reviewer powers to slow your work, to try and
force you to make conclusions more to their liking, and to try and force
your study into their world view.

Thank god the good ones are still in the majority.

Bryan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryan,
One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
points of view from the mainstream. Sharon Hope recently posted a report
indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
of the dangerous side effects of statins. Please don't ask for proof since
I don't make hard copies of every post that I read.

Nor does anyone else, Jason. They are, however, archived and
searchable.

Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? If so, can you see
that there is a conflict of interest. If you wrote a well researched
article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
article would be printed in JAMA?
I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.

Jason, did you never hear of the article purporting to show a link
between MMR and autism printed in the Lancet?

Of course, it was disavowed by most of its authors in the end, and it
was of course a tad embarrassing for the Lancet when they discovered
that the main author, Andrew Wakefield, was receiving money from
lawyers for parents trying to sue a vaccine company. And that eight of
the 12 kids involved in the study were childrn of those parents.

But here's the thing. They printed it.



Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Bryan Heit
wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote:
snip

Jeff wrote:

Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
claims with peer-reviewed research.

Jeff


http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm

Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
by David F. Horrobin



Abstract

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review
system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific
research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking
the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.


And this is relevant how? Do you even know what peer-review is? I
actually agree with much of what was written here; having published
several scientific papers I'm well familiar with the peer review system.
And there is no question that some (not all) researchers use their
powers as reviewers to try and achieve their own ends.

In my experience, about 2/3rds of the reviewers provide valid critism
and useful suggestions. These people make the system as valuable as it
is - a second, new mind to find your holes and make the study better.
The other third uses their reviewer powers to slow your work, to try and
force you to make conclusions more to their liking, and to try and force
your study into their world view.

Thank god the good ones are still in the majority.

Bryan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryan,
One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
points of view from the mainstream. Sharon Hope recently posted a report
indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
of the dangerous side effects of statins. Please don't ask for proof since
I don't make hard copies of every post that I read.

Nor does anyone else, Jason. They are, however, archived and
searchable.

Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? If so, can you see
that there is a conflict of interest. If you wrote a well researched
article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
article would be printed in JAMA?
I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.

Jason, did you never hear of the article purporting to show a link
between MMR and autism printed in the Lancet?

Of course, it was disavowed by most of its authors in the end, and it
was of course a tad embarrassing for the Lancet when they discovered
that the main author, Andrew Wakefield, was receiving money from
lawyers for parents trying to sue a vaccine company. And that eight of
the 12 kids involved in the study were childrn of those parents.

But here's the thing. They printed it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
advocates of creation science. Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
was an advocate of evolution.
It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins. The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article , Bryan Heit
wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
"Bryan Heit" wrote:
snip

Jeff wrote:

Please provide instances where their reports were in error. Back these
claims with peer-reviewed research.

Jeff


http://www.digibio.com/archive/SomethingRotten.htm

Something Rotten at the Core of Science?
by David F. Horrobin



Abstract

A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision and an analysis of the peer review
system substantiate complaints about this fundamental aspect of scientific
research. Far from filtering out junk science, peer review may be blocking
the flow of innovation and corrupting public support of science.


And this is relevant how? Do you even know what peer-review is? I
actually agree with much of what was written here; having published
several scientific papers I'm well familiar with the peer review system.
And there is no question that some (not all) researchers use their
powers as reviewers to try and achieve their own ends.

In my experience, about 2/3rds of the reviewers provide valid critism
and useful suggestions. These people make the system as valuable as it
is - a second, new mind to find your holes and make the study better.
The other third uses their reviewer powers to slow your work, to try and
force you to make conclusions more to their liking, and to try and force
your study into their world view.

Thank god the good ones are still in the majority.

Bryan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryan,
One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
points of view from the mainstream. Sharon Hope recently posted a report
indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
of the dangerous side effects of statins. Please don't ask for proof since
I don't make hard copies of every post that I read.

Nor does anyone else, Jason. They are, however, archived and
searchable.

Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins? If so, can you see
that there is a conflict of interest. If you wrote a well researched
article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
article would be printed in JAMA?
I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.

Jason, did you never hear of the article purporting to show a link
between MMR and autism printed in the Lancet?

Of course, it was disavowed by most of its authors in the end, and it
was of course a tad embarrassing for the Lancet when they discovered
that the main author, Andrew Wakefield, was receiving money from
lawyers for parents trying to sue a vaccine company. And that eight of
the 12 kids involved in the study were childrn of those parents.

But here's the thing. They printed it.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
advocates of creation science. Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
was an advocate of evolution.

It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.

It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins.

I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.

The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.

No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.

It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(Jason Johnson) wrote:

Cathy,
I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
advocates of creation science.

As they should.

Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
was an advocate of evolution.

No article advocating creation "science" could ever pass peer review
by real scientists, regardless of their opinions about evolution,
simply because it would not contain any science.

Why should a magazine devoted to science give any credibility to
something which is so obviously not scientific? Similarly, do you
think that MacWorld magazine should carry articles extolling the
wonders of Windows XP, or Biker Chicks carry articles by separation
feminists, or golfing magazines carry articles saying how good it is
to spend the weekends gardening, or gardening magazines carry articles
saying that golf is more important than aphid control, or Catholic
Weekly carry reviews of pornographic films?

Any publication has the right to refuse to publish material which
contradicts or disagrees with its charter or editorial policy. That's
what "editorial policy" means. The Smithsonian is a scientific
organisation, so you would expect to see only science in its
publications. JAMA is a medical journal, so you would only expect to
see properly conducted medical science reported in its pages. The fact
that The Lancet published Wakefield's crap shows that it is possible
for bad science to fall through the cracks at times, and JAMA (or was
it NEJM?) published the ludicrous "108,000 deaths" rubbish that the
quacks keep regurgitating.

It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins. The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
Jason

JAMA's funding comes from a lot of subscriptions by a lot of doctors,
hospitals, universities and public libraries, plus some advertising.
The peer review panels are not employees of JAMA, so what would be the
advantage to the members to favour JAMA's advertisers?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Jason Johnson wrote:
Bryan,
One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
points of view from the mainstream.


This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went
directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble
getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through
which support existing theories.

Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out
of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient
data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got
my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the
data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on
re-writing the science books this is what you need to do.

I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers
published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I
can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not
complete.


Sharon Hope recently posted a report
indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
of the dangerous side effects of statins.


Complete and absolute bull****. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165
articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum



Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins?


Yes.


If so, can you see
that there is a conflict of interest.


No. Most scientific journals are set up such that the editorial boards
and advertising boards have no influence over each other. Keep in mind
that the people who pick and review papers for scientific journals are
not employees of the journal, nor are they paid for their services.
Hell, even I have reviewed papers for journals, and my boss acts as an
editor for several journals. The whole underlying purpose of this
system is to avoid the very conflicts you worry about.

Long story short, scientists pick the content of the journal, the
advertising guys simply try to pay for it - where do you think the money
comes from to pay for all of those journals which have free on-line access?


If you wrote a well researched
article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
article would be printed in JAMA?


They most certantly would. In fact, I found four articles in JAMA on
that very topic:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish...


I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.

Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong...

Bryan

cathyb wrote:
Cathy,
I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
advocates of creation science. Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
was an advocate of evolution.


It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.


Well stated. unIntelegent design fails all three criteria to be a
scientific theory:

1) It is untestable. (how do you test for "irreproducible complexity",
or the existence of god?).

2) It is not based on, nor does it explain, previous scientific studies
or their data.

3) It is not falsifiable, meaning that if the theory is wrong you could
never prove so. No matter what result you find, the proponents can
always claim "god du-nn it".


It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins.


I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.


A prejudice which is also dead wrong. See my response to Jason, where I
link to about a dozen studies in JAMA which are about the dangers of
statins.



It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

And climate change, and continental drift, and QED, and homeobox genes,
and pretty much every other major scientific theory I can think of.

Bryan

In article , Peter Bowditch
wrote:

(Jason Johnson) wrote:

Cathy,
I don't recall reading about it but my memory is not 100% perfect. It's an
interesting story. I know of an interesting story related to a magazine
that I seem to recall was printed by the Smithsonian institute. They sceen
out from that magazine (and the review process) any articles written by
advocates of creation science.

As they should.

Somehow, the editor managed to print in the
magazine an article written by an advocate of creation science. The editor
was fired and I don't know what ever happened to him. Of course, the
article would have NEVER passed the peer review process since every member
was an advocate of evolution.

No article advocating creation "science" could ever pass peer review
by real scientists, regardless of their opinions about evolution,
simply because it would not contain any science.

Why should a magazine devoted to science give any credibility to
something which is so obviously not scientific? Similarly, do you
think that MacWorld magazine should carry articles extolling the
wonders of Windows XP, or Biker Chicks carry articles by separation
feminists, or golfing magazines carry articles saying how good it is
to spend the weekends gardening, or gardening magazines carry articles
saying that golf is more important than aphid control, or Catholic
Weekly carry reviews of pornographic films?

Any publication has the right to refuse to publish material which
contradicts or disagrees with its charter or editorial policy. That's
what "editorial policy" means. The Smithsonian is a scientific
organisation, so you would expect to see only science in its
publications. JAMA is a medical journal, so you would only expect to
see properly conducted medical science reported in its pages. The fact
that The Lancet published Wakefield's crap shows that it is possible
for bad science to fall through the cracks at times, and JAMA (or was
it NEJM?) published the ludicrous "108,000 deaths" rubbish that the
quacks keep regurgitating.

It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins. The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.
Jason

JAMA's funding comes from a lot of subscriptions by a lot of doctors,
hospitals, universities and public libraries, plus some advertising.
The peer review panels are not employees of JAMA, so what would be the
advantage to the members to favour JAMA's advertisers?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hello,
Are the members of the peer review panel paid for their services? If so,
they know that they would be fired if they approved articles that
mentioned the dangerous side effects and newly discovered side effects of
statins or other drugs made by the companies that were advertisers.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:


It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.

It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins.

I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.

The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.

No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.

It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
You always make great points. Were you ever on a debate team?
I know how the process works. Thank goodness for the newsletters published
by alternative doctors such as Doctor Julian Whitaker and alternative
magazines such as "Prevention" and "Life Extension". I visit a health
food store at least once a week and have seen at least a dozen different
alternative health magazines for sale in that store. The vast majority
of people in America are more likely to read those magazines than read
JAMA and related mazagines. It's my guess that more people read the
creation science newsletter published by the Institute for Creation
Research than read the magazine published by the Smithsonian Intitute.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In article , Bryan Heit
wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
Bryan,
One of the major problems that I have with the peer review system is the
way that system is used to screen out researchers that have alternative
points of view from the mainstream.


This is far from the truth. My first scientific publication went
directly against over 20 years of studies. I had no more trouble
getting it through peer review the I have had getting papers through
which support existing theories.

Long story short is that most people who try to push through ideas out
of the mainstream areas of thought is that they do not have sufficient
data to support their claims. Big claims require lots of proof. I got
my paper through simply because we did enough experiments to make the
data as close to irrefutable as possible. If you're planning on
re-writing the science books this is what you need to do.

I've heard many people claim that they cannot get their papers
published, often blaming the peer-review process. But in all cases I
can think of off hand, I would have argued that there studies were not
complete.


Sharon Hope recently posted a report
indicating that JAMA refuses to accept any articles that pointed out all
of the dangerous side effects of statins.


Complete and absolute bull****. A quick pubmed reveals at least 165
articles published in JAMA on that very topic. Here's a few:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_DocSum



Does JAMA run ads in
their magazine paid for by companies that make statins?


Yes.


If so, can you see
that there is a conflict of interest.


No. Most scientific journals are set up such that the editorial boards
and advertising boards have no influence over each other. Keep in mind
that the people who pick and review papers for scientific journals are
not employees of the journal, nor are they paid for their services.
Hell, even I have reviewed papers for journals, and my boss acts as an
editor for several journals. The whole underlying purpose of this
system is to avoid the very conflicts you worry about.

Long story short, scientists pick the content of the journal, the
advertising guys simply try to pay for it - where do you think the money
comes from to pay for all of those journals which have free on-line access?


If you wrote a well researched
article that indated that thimerosal causes autism--do you think that the
article would be printed in JAMA?


They most certantly would. In fact, I found four articles in JAMA on
that very topic:


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_Abstract

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...=pubmed_docsum

The first article being exactly what you claim they wouldn't publish...


I doubt it. Feel free to disagree.

Not only do I disagree, but I've proved you wrong...

Bryan

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Bryan,
Thanks for taking the time and effort to explain the review process.
I am glad that you were able to get your scientific publications
past the peer review process. You made some excellent points.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Jason Johnson wrote:
In article .com,
"cathyb" wrote:


It wouldn't have passed the peer review process not because every
member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence
for creation science.
It's an untestable hypothesis.

It's my guess that every member of JAMA's peer reveiw process is an
advocate of statins. I would not be shocked if I learned that much of
JAMA's funding is from companies that make statins.

I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just
said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here.

The peer review
process screens out articles that are not part of the main stream.

No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches
unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it.

It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely
unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your
misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance,
the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before
finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and
ulcers.

But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the
Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy,
You always make great points. Were you ever on a debate team?
I know how the process works. Thank goodness for the newsletters published
by alternative doctors such as Doctor Julian Whitaker and alternative
magazines such as "Prevention" and "Life Extension". I visit a health
food store at least once a week and have seen at least a dozen different
alternative health magazines for sale in that store. The vast majority
of people in America are more likely to read those magazines than read
JAMA and related mazagines. It's my guess that more people read the
creation science newsletter published by the Institute for Creation
Research than read the magazine published by the Smithsonian Intitute.

Most people prefer the excellent pictures in Smithsonian.