Re: Results taken out of context

The unsuspecting reader might think that taking a SINGLE ITEM like echinacea, vitamin E, carrots or a red wine and using that ALONE in a test proves it doesn't work. Ha.

When a practitioner of Alternative Medicine provides a remedy for some problem, he usually has a short list of several things that need to be done of which the echinacea (for example)IS ONLY ONE ITEM on that list.

The same thing is true for vitamin E.

The same thing is true for any vegetable you might pick. Pick one.

The same thing is true for any fruit you might eat. If you are told by someone experienced using natural type remedies, or you read it yourself, that blueberries have an anti-oxidant effect (which means they protect against cancer) does that mean if you eat only blueberries you won't get cancer? Eating only blueberries all day long is something a kindergardner would do. Not a person with cancer. Blueberries are included in a very long list of things that must be done in order to overcome cancer. (So what sense does it make to test only blueberries in these so called scientific studies?)

Blueberries are also included in a very long list of things that must be done in order to prevent cancer. Blueberries are very helpfull in a certain context of things. Things that have to be eaten, or things that have to be done (along with the blueberries). They need certain other things around them, to react with, in the body.
Is the body such a simple instrument that it needs only blueberries to set it straight when something goes wrong? Here again, someone in kindergarten would say, "yes" that's all you need :) .......but scientists who run tests on blueberries aren't in kindergarten. So why do serious people run tests by letting the person eat what they want and only add blueberries (to thier meals)? Like they'd tell you in a high school Science class, it DEPENDS on what you are tying to prove.

I'm going to make up an example. If you have to eat 10 things on a list for preventing cancer and you only eat one, blueberries, out of that list, then you get tested, what does that prove? What would that prove about blueberries? What if the group that ate meals and blueberries had about the same amount of cancer as the group of people who ate meals without blueberries? Let's pretend you conclude blueberries don't work. You could then do a similar test on each of the other 9 items on that list to see if any of them work.

You could run 9 more tests, each like the first one. One group uses (eats) a item from the list of 10, and the other group does not eat that item. At the conclusion of each test you find both groups have the same amount of cancer. Let's pretend you conclude that there isn't one item on that list of 10 that has any effect against cancer.

You would be wrong. What you have done is what Julius Caesar belived in and that is "divide and conquer." You isolate each item in the list and test it by itself. Since each one does not work by itself, you conclude that nothing on that list of 10 will do anything against cancer, so if you have cancer, taking blueberries won't help. If you want to prevent cancer, blueberries won't help either. This is the kind of argument someone in kindergarden would believe, and is actually taught. As well as through the primary grades and on T.V. But I won't believe it.

If a scientist only uses part of a remedy to test (only tests effects of blueberries) can he really conclude blueberries don't have any part in it (healing/preventing)? Can he really imply that there is nothing you can do to prevent cancer, slow it down, or stop it? If he is testing only part of the remedy but making conclusions about the whole remedy, he has taken the results out of context. (This bears repeating.)

Just because a scientist can't see any difference using only blueberries (or only echinacea, or only 1 vegetable) does not mean there isn't any difference if he used all 10 items from the list TOGETHER RATHER THAN INDIVIDUALLY. To conclude they don't work together (to prevent cancer) is taking the results of the test OUT OF CONTEXT.

When Julius Ceasar fought, he sent his whole army against the enemy. He did not climb to the top of a hill and then send out only 1 foot soldier to conquer the enemy. And then wait to see how many of the enemy's soldiers that one man killed. Maybe 5 or 6, how many could he possibly kill before being found and killed himself?
Just because 1 foot soldier can't wipe out an enemy army by himself, does not mean that all the indivdual soldiers working together as Ceasar's army won't be able to conquer the enemy.

Likewise, why depend on a few blueberries to kill off an army of cancer cells or an army of free-radicals floating around in your bloodstream? Does it make sense to conclude blueberries can't help prevent cancer? Not to me. You cannot depend on only blueberries or only echinacea or only one type of help (or one foot soldier) to overcome your problem. If you have a cold and take echinacea then go ice skating in street clothes, are you going to complain afterwards echinacea didn't work because you still have your cold, and would you still think you sound logical?

There are going to continue to be endless studies like the ones reviewed in the article on every vegetable, from A to Z, showing how the individual vegetables aren't any good in preventing cancer or slowing it down or stopping it.

What would motivate a scientist to test an individual vegetable? Because it is much, much easier this way to show/misrepresent that vegetables won't help you in your fight against cancer. Why is this important? It does not contradict what the scientist's theory is.

What would motivate a reviewer to review a whole series of such articles?
They are not in direct contradiction to what the reviewer already believes.

If you think that Science and all scientists are completely objective, and so if you brought a study before a panel of 12 scientists to peer-review and expected them to be fair when your novel study is in direct contradiction to their theory(s), you are dreaming.


definitions for those who find them usefull:
bias..........a disposition or predisposition that sways the mind
..............prejudice (pre-judging)

credible......worthy of belief

credentials...testimonials showing that a person is entitled to belief or credit

objective.....it is seen to relate to something which is external to the mind
..............it exists outside the mind (can be seen)
..............unbiased
..............in grammar-a relationship to or pertaining to the subject Tweet