Dr What's his name

[Guest guest]

don't get medical information from un-reviewed web sites. My experience with self-published medical books is that their only true use is toilet paper.If the guy had something genuinely provocative to say, let him put it in a peer reviewed journal.

Ummm..I do not know whether I agree with this statement 100 %, JB

Yes, it is a very good idea to get the scientific world to "validate" your work by peer review, but many of the visionaries of science got their ideas rejected first.

Mooney and I wrote a book that was considered heresy at the time, and that would have had no chance of being validated in any way by peer review. I have seen many people self publish their work because it is the only way they will get their ideas out there without censorship. Thank God for that!

What we call accepted reality sometimes is just an illusion anyway, and paradigms are broken all the time after a lot of resistance. But the visionaries will always be lonely people who will be criticized for their 'strange" ideas. And, yes, there are some others would are just crazy anyway LOL

VergelDirectorProgram for Wellness Restoration, PoWeRA 501 © 3 non profit national organizationLinks to our web sites:www.nelsonvergel.comwww.powerusa.orgwww.facialwasting.orgwww.salvagetherapies.orgJoin our free listservers by sending a blank email to:pozhealth-subscribe fuzeonsupport-subscribe

[Guest guest]

True.

I don't get medical information from un-reviewed web sites. My

experience with self-published medical books is that their only true

use is toilet paper.

If the guy had something genuinely provocative to say, let him put it

in a peer reviewed journal.

On Sep 19, 2004, at 7:27 AM, PozHealth wrote:

> Close mindedness can in some cases be as deleterious to truth as

> psychosis.

[Guest guest]

,

It's kind of too broad a statement on my part, perhaps, and in some

cases, of course, good information comes from non-peer-reviewed places.

This is especially true with new situations, like that we encountered

when AIDS/HIV was new.

Still, when dealing with something as intensively studied as blood

lipids, I see no reason to rush to read someone's web site. The fact

that ideas are not supported by data is not " a challenge to orthodoxy, "

but a reason to be suspicious. Most mass-public books on diet, etc,

are shockingly awful.

It's also a bit of a myth that " many visionaries of science got their

ideas rejected first. " While some ideas do take a while to catch on,

I can think of few scientific ideas that were out-and-out rejected for

all time by " mainstream scientists. "

JB

> Ummm..I do not know whether I agree with this statement 100 %, JB

> Yes, it is a very good idea to get the scientific world to " validate "

> your work by peer review, but many of the visionaries of science got

> their ideas rejected first.

[Guest guest]

Well, there are visionaries and there are crackpots.

Sure, there are scientists who lead the way with ideas that take a

while to catch on (continental drift is a very good example). Still,

few of these brilliant minds are dealing with wild ass speculation, but

with interpretations of data.

In the case of cholesterol, the evidence linking lipid abnormalities is

so mountainous, if incomplete, that the web site in question sniffs of

" virusmyth, " more than vision.

So, shoot me if I'm wrong in a few years, but I'm not going to drop the

lipitor and niaspan because I read something " provocative " on the 'net.

JB

> The point is that many visionaries are right way ahead of the crowd,

> and we do not have " all time " to wait.

>

>