I prefer to remain anoymous, and let the evidence speak for itself. I will admit that I've taught dozens of college courses, and the centerpiece of almost all those courses was human reason and the scientific method. Today, especially in biology, medicine, and nutrition, the scientific method has been largely ignored, and instead "models," "markers," abstract categories that sound reasonable but yet have not been verified, etc. are the poor substitutions used to make crucial decisions. And we can see the results, though many choose to believe the propaganda (or whatever one wished to call it), such as, "cancer will be cured by 1980" or "we'll have a vaccine to HIV before 1990." Every so often one hears these kinds of fabulous promises, and yet they never seem to come true. In a democratic nation, politicians with such a "track record" would find themselves voted out of office, but the opposite seems to always happen in the biomedical establishment.

If one does not stray from the scientific method, however, this would not happen, because once one prediction fails, everything must be completely re-evaluated. If the theoretical structure upon which such predictions are based is not changed, and one keeps making the same kinds of predictions, the sanity of that person might reasonably be questioned, assuming that he or she is aware of the scientfic method. And yet again, this almost never happens. Rather, the public just goes along with things, believing whatever the promise du jour is happens to be.

So what is the scientific method? It's fairly simple and straightforward. Basically, one puts forth a hypothesis (or claim) that can be verified by repeated experiments that directly tests it. Furthermore, all variables need to be controlled for, so that the agent responsible for the result is not confused with something else.

Let's take a specific example: virologist and chemist Peter Duesberg has argued that the "HIV/AIDS" claim does not meet Koch's Postulates, which is a "short cut" that was developed to circumvent meeting the more rigorous standards of the scientific method. Others have argued that the postulates have been met, while still others argue that the postulates are "outdated" or not especially important for one reason or another.

What I would point out here is that just because a virus is always present during a "disease" does not mean that the virus is the "cause." For example, if all the people in the population exposed to the virus have something in their bodies that is greatly enhancing the inflammatory response to "pathogens," then that thing in their bodies may be said to be the cause. One would have to isolate all the possible factors, then test to see if there are differences. This could result in the deaths of many people, so obviously it is not going to be done by non-criminal researchers. Often, animal "models" of disease are created because of this problem, but there is no way to know how accurate these models are.

Thus, there is really no way the scientific method can be adhered to in such matters, because of all the factors involved (some of which are not likely known yet), and the problem of testing without the possibility of killing people in the process. Moreover, even in the case of "infectious diseases," not everyone exposed to them do in fact develop symptoms. In nutrition, things get even worse, as items like lard are classifed as "saturated fat," even though it is less than 40% saturated, and in medical advice, people are told not to eat "saturated fat" because it "raises cholesterol," yet some saturated fatty acids actually lower cholesterol, and recently AHA spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, has stated that only oxidized cholesterol is dangerous, meaning that cholesterol levels are at best an indirect predictor.

How can such a sad state of affairs be remedied so that the scientific method is followed? One thing that must be done is state results for what they are. In the case of dietary studies, one can, for example, experiment on a few different animal species (preferably mammals) that live for no more than several years, providing them with different "real world" diets - ones that people not only do eat or have eaten (historically), but actually like to eat. We could then see which diet is best for the animals, and then make our own decisions. In this way, we would not need to be concerned about whether underlying assumptions are correct or not.

Now, I'd like to quote some comments from scientists who realize that much of what is thought to be "scientific" may be described better as "magical thinking," for example: ""It became apparent that this chemistry was significant to human health," he said. "For years, I was in the mind frame that anything biological was magical, and that the chemistry that occurs in test tubes had little relevance to the chemistry that occurs in biological processes. "Slowly over the past decade, I have begun to realize that chemistry is part of the problem and part of the solution. Biology must adapt to the chemistry inherent in the molecules we're made of..." Source: http://www.cwru.edu/pubaff/univcomm/2002/june/cholesterol.htm

And perhaps even more telling, from the book, “The Billion-Dollar Molecule�?(1994) by Werth, Mark Murko, who sought to delineate protein structures, states: “…not all the equations we use to describe those interactions are accurate. Some of them are fudge factors. Some of them are thought to be correct even though the experimental data they’re based on are wrong, only nobody knows that because nobody’s gone back and double-checked the experiments. Some are pure guesses. There are assumptions, biases. There’s user error. There’s imprecision in the hardware and software.� Page 303. And on page 209, it is said that the chemist Joshua Boger thinks biology is “too mushy.�?Boger states: “I mean, what are the basic concepts of biology and how sure are we of them? Well, there aren’t any, hardly. It isn’t that the people are stupid, it’s that the data isn’t there.�?

Some "experts" have degrees in "molecular biology." Do you see the potential problem with this approach? If you are studying the interactions of molecules in living cells, and yet you accept dogma that was never demonstrated scientifically, then you are likely to see what you want to see, just as the first to look through microscopes thought they saw little humans inside sperm cells. Instead, one needs to look at the evidence as a whole, determine if an overall framework can be constructed, and then propose experiments that would verify it.

After several decades of no real progress in curing the major "diseases" in Western nations, you would think that people like molecular biologists would realize this. Obviously, some have, but for the majority it seems like they would rather just stay "inside the box" in their thought processes and keep making promises about the "great breakthroughs" that will mean "an end to all disease" in the "near future." Fortunately, there is now plenty of evidence available to understand at least the basics of the scientific reality causing what we perceive as "disease" and hopefully I can do a reasonable job on this site it conveying it to you (and perhaps you can contribute something as well, as often occurs in my classes - I do my best to promote "classroom participation").

And a point I make more than once in my short essays is that the evidence is there, "staring everyone in the face," and yet it is so difficult for most people to "think outside the box." For example: "Crohn's Disease is an inflammatory bowel disease that causes inflammation or ulceration of the gastrointestinal tract... While the cause is unknown, many professionals believe that the body's immune system may overreact to normal intestinal bacteria..." This is right on target, but instead of taking a fresh look at the literature on "inflammation," most of these "professionals" are interested in developing drugs that might do more harm than good (if they do any good at all), instead of questioning existing notions about what "inflammation" is, how its potency can be modified, etc. As I discovered, when one asks such questions, the answers suggest that much, if not most "disease" may be preventable, as I demonstrate in some of the other short essays on this site.

Source: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060523085937.htm