Publishing Re: Veritox 2004 Review Paper & Kell...

[Guest guest]

" Mark Doughty " wrote:

> I have watched this conversation for a long time now and can say

that it is the same old whine to the same crowd. I doubt you have

convinced the scientist on this list of anything for the reasons that

Tony has so patiently laid forth. Just because something seems

obvious to you does not make it science. You can't throw Koch's

postulate out the window because it is inconvenient or because you

don't think it matters.

> Mark Doughty

When something IS obvious and reproducible to those who are " in the

thick of it " , the phenomenon HAS overwhelmingly fulfilled Koch's

postulates.

Saying that it hasn't is interpreted by sufferers as an indication

that science simply hasn't done the research yet - and refuses to do

so on the grounds that empirical evidence should not be used to

challenge A Priori knowledge in the same way that medical science saw

no need to test Barry Marshalls H Pylori concepts on the basis that it

has long been known that " stress is the cause of ulcers " .

This epistemological dichotomy is exemplified by the expression on

parents faces when the authorities assure them that the school has

been scientifically tested, is perfectly safe, and that their children

are not being made ill by exposure.

Parents who cannot discard their observations and the authorities who

insist that they cannot ignore science arrive at an irreconciliable

impasse.

From the parents point of view, the science clearly has not caught

up with the evidence, and authorities are attempting to use lack of a

known scientific explanation as evidence that the observable effects

do not exist and do not need further investigation.

Once this point is reached, witnesses to mycotoxin mediated illness

acquire the conviction that no matter how intelligent one may

otherwise appear, or how many " machines that go ping " they possess,

they are blinded by their own technology and unable to empirically

verify mundane matters elucidated by common sense, and that their

opinions can no longer be trusted, as such people are dogmatically

guided by a logical fallacy.

It is fascinating that those who dismiss observations citing " lack of

scientific data " firmly believe their views have logically prevailed,

when the reality is they have undermined their own " evidence based "

credibility to such an extent, that, as I said on the old IAQ

board, " Parents wouldn't believe anything they said now even if they

were to assert that the Pope really IS Catholic and that wild bear DO

crap in the woods " .

-