Share on Google Plus Share on Twitter Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share on PInterest Share on Fark! Share on Reddit Share on StumbleUpon Tell A Friend

Printer Friendly Page Save As Favorite View Favorites (# of views)   2 comments
Diary (Diaries are not moderated)

Is Evolution-Based Medicine Scientific?

By   Follow Me on Twitter     Message Robert Affolter     Permalink
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
Add to My Group

View Ratings | Rate It

opednews.com

Is the process of falsification, the hallmark of science, used in evolution-based medicine?

::::::::

- Advertisement -

Philosopher of science Karl Popper is credited with emphasizing the power of falsification. We can never prove that something is true. No matter how much evidence we have that something is true there is always the possibility that a new observation will contradict the theory.

Stephen Hawking wrote that just a single observation that contradicts a theory is enough to discard the theory and advance science.(1) Science uses the falsification process to prove theories wrong and when failing to do so, the failure adds evidence for the truth of the theory.

As we shall see evolution-based medicine does not meet the standards of science as proposed by Stephen Hawking. In fact rather than allowing one observation to falsify a hypothesis, we find "scientific" medicine treating patients when the hypothesis is falsified 98% of the time. Imagine the money to be made when 98% of the patients treated will not be benefited by the treatment.

I am not anti-medicine or surgery. In fact, I hope we all agree that medication to relieve pain and suffering is a benefit to mankind. I hope we also agree that surgery to put people back together or correct a defect also benefits mankind. However, much of medical care claimed to prevent disease is based on statistical nonsense. It is time to expose this pseudoscientific, statistical nonsense for what it really is.

The Evolution of Evolution-Based Medicine

Evolution-based medicine in America really started with the Flexner Report of 1910. The Carnegie Foundation for Advancement of Teaching funded the report. It criticized medical education and recommended a standardized curriculum. The report advocated that the program be "arduous and expensive."(2) Funding for schools was soon limited to those adopting the new curriculum. State licensing boards would only grant licenses to those graduating from schools using the new curriculum. Although the change can be said to have advanced the scientific investigation and approach to health care, it has also limited thought and research into alternative ideas.

In 1925, the Scopes "Monkey Trial", brought the teaching of evolution to the forefront. Creationism won the trial but lost in the court of public opinion.(3) Evolution has increasingly been taught in public schools and is now the norm. My argument is not that we should teach creationism, but that perhaps a baby was somewhere in the bathwater.

Now, the evolutionary theory stating that intelligence evolved unguided from matter has been taught as truth for so long that any other idea is ridiculed. Evolutionists are now in positions of power throughout government. They determine who gets research funding. Any method that does not meet their approval does not get funding. Methods that meet their approval get funding. They then abuse their power by claiming that there is no research evidence to support positions adversarial to their own.

- Advertisement -

With all this emphasis on science and all the money dumped into medicine and evolutionary research, medical procedures are now supported by solid scientific evidence, right? No.

A cover story in BusinessWeek was titled Medical Guesswork. The article was about the work of Dr. David Eddy using statistics to improve medical outcomes. Dr. Eddy holds a clinical doctorate in medicine as well as a doctor of philosophy in statistics. According to the article, although things are improving, as of 2006, only 20-25% of medicine was supported by solid evidence.(4)

My experience has been that those involved in evolution-based medicine often hold others up to higher standards than are met by evolution-based medicine. Next we will look at statistical analysis and the science behind the randomized, placebo controlled clinical trial.

(1) Hawking SH. A Brief History Of Time. New York (NY): Bantam Books; 1988; pg. 10.

- Advertisement -

(2) Beck, AH. The Flexner Report and the Standardization of American Medical Education. JAMA. 2004:291(17):2139-2140. //jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/reprint/291/17/2139 accessed 06/27/09

(3) Linder, Douglas O. State v. John Scopes ("The Monkey Trial").University of Missouri-Kansas City. //www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/Ftrials/scopes/evolut.htm accessed 07/10/09

(4) Carey, John. "Medical Guesswork." BusinessWeek. 29 May 2006
//www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_22/b3986001.htm accessed 07/10/09.

 

- Advertisement -
Dr. Affolter's paperback, Dupe 'em and Dope 'em is now available in online bookstores. It combines his two ebooks: Exposed: How Politics Increased the Cost of Health Care in America and Exposed: The "Science" of Medicine and the Dollars It (more...)
 
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.

Follow Me on Twitter

Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Related Topic(s): ; ; , Add Tags
- Advertisement -