Medical hypotheses
-
Traditionally, science has been published only under the proper names and postal addresses of the scientists who did the work. This is no longer the case, and over recent decades science authorship has fundamentally changed its character. At one extreme, prestigious scientists writing from high status institutions are used as mere figureheads to publish research that has been performed, analyzed and 'ghost-written' by commercial organizations. ⋯ So it seems that professional science needs the quant bloggers. One possible scenario is that professional scientists may in future continue to be paid to do the plodding business of generating raw data (dull work that no one would do unless they were paid); but these same professional scientists (functioning essentially as either project managers or technicians) may be found to lack the boldness, flair, sheer 'smarts' or genuine interest in the subject to make sense of what they have discovered. Some branches of future science may then come to depend on a swarm of gifted 'amateurs' somewhat like the current quant bloggers; for analysis and integration of their data, for understanding its implications, and for speculating freely about the potential applications.
-
Post-radiation syndrome is proposed to be chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) or a chronic fatigue syndrome-like illness, initiated by exposure to ionizing radiation. This view is supported by the nitric oxide/peroxynitrite (NO/ONOO-) cycle mechanism, the putative etiologic mechanism for CFS and related illnesses. ⋯ The symptoms and signs of post-radiation syndrome and its chronicity are similar or identical to those of chronic fatigue syndrome and can be explained as being a consequence of nitric oxide/peroxynitrite cycle etiology. While the data available to test this view are limited, it provides for the first time a comprehensive explanation for post-radiation syndrome.
-
Fake treatments work. That is a well established medical fact. This is why the golden standard of evidence-based medicine requires double-blind testing. ⋯ The hypothesis shall have to be tested experimentally, before "meta-placebo" treatments can become evidence-based medicine. Such validation involves several medical philosophical complications. How can the hypothesis be tested following the golden double-blind standard? What syndrome would be suited for a meta-placebo-experiment? What would a treatment in a meta-placebo experiment look like? How can meta-placebo be distinguish from placebo? What ethical aspects do meta-placebo's have? This article discusses these questions in detail.
-
The inverse association between maternal folate status and incidence of infants born with neural tube defects (NTD's) was recognized over twenty years ago and led the US health agencies in the early 1990s to recommend that women of childbearing age consume 400 microg of folic acid each day. The FDA followed by mandating that certain foods be fortified with folic acid and this has resulted in a significant enhancement of maternal folate status to levels that are often difficult to otherwise achieve naturally. At least one study indicates that this has decreased the incidence of NTD's. ⋯ This also points directly to an increased rate of births of infants with higher postnatal requirements for folic acid needed for normal methylation during this critical neurodevelopmental period. If these numbers have increased then so have the absolute number of infants that after birth fail to maintain the higher folate status experienced in utero thus leading to an increased number of cases of developmental disorders such as Autism. Detection of the C677T polymorphism as well as other methionine cycle enzymes related to folate metabolism and methylation at birth as part of newborn screening programs could determine which newborns need be monitored and maintained on diets or supplements that ensure adequate folate status during this critical postnatal neurodevelopment period.
-
Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. ⋯ If zombie science is not scientifically-useable--what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.