General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: More on Cannabis cures cancer..... [View all]cali
(114,904 posts)The complexity of cancer, part II: Enter the quacks
Respectful Insolence
The complexity of cancer, part II: Enter the quacks
Posted by Orac on August 25, 2011
(73)
Share on email More »
A couple of days ago, I couldnt resist discussing a recent article in the New York Times about recent discoveries in cancer research. I considered the article to be a mix of the good, the bad, and the ugly. While the article did a pretty good job of describing recent discoveries about how noncoding RNA, the tumor microenvironment, and even microbes are involved in the pathogenesis of cancer, it had an annoying spin that portrayed some of these discoveries as being much shinier and newer than they actually are. At the time, I noted that quacks would certainly use this article as a jumping-off point to attack conventional medicine, and, of course, they did.
My expectation when I first encountered the NYT article was that someone like everyones favorite quack and all-around conspiracy theorist Mike Adams or everyones favorite entrepreneurial crank Joe Mercola would leap all over the article. To my surprise, neither did. On the other hand, another of my favorite crank organizations, namely the International Medical Veritas Association, leapt into the breach where the more famous cranks didnt. One interesting thing I learned delving into this nonsense is that there are apparently two different Medical Veritas organizations. The first one (and the one Im most familiar with) is Medical Veritas International and publishes the infamous Medical Veritas journal, which is is apparently no longer being published and used to bill itself as the journal of medical truth. It was also rabidly anti-vaccine and HIV/AIDS denialist. The second organization is the International Medical Veritas Association. This latter organization is headed up by an acupuncturist Mark Sircus, who writes the IMVA blog.
At this point I cant help but wonder what this fascination is with truth among medical cranks. The fascination is so strong that we have not just one, but apparently two, cranks groups named, in essence, medical truth. As I always say, medicine and science are not about truth. They are about testing hypotheses, designing models, and developing theories that make useful predictions about how nature behaves. Truth is not what scientists are about, but it is apparently what cranks are about. Perhaps thats why they favor such simplistic answers and cling to them with religious fervor. But I digress.
Sircus, it turns out, fancies himself a cancer expert and penned a lovely little ditty he entitled Cancer Still a Mystery to Medical Science. In many ways, that might be true, but as Ive pointed out, just because science doesnt know everything doesnt mean that you can fill in the gaps with whatever nonsense that catches your fancy, or, as Dara OBriain puts it, Science knows it doesnt know everything; otherwise, itd stop. Sircus, in a single article, not only shows the arrogance of ignorance, he reveals a quack technique that Ive noticed before but have never really seen done so blatantly:
<snip>
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2011/08/25/the-complexity-of-cancer-part-ii-enter-t/
great article.