Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Internet Search
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
amazing
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Marguerite" data-source="post: 407050" data-attributes="member: 1991"><p>TM, it's the same kid in your article.</p><p></p><p>Jena, I'm not saying I disbelieve the parents, or don't believe this is an amazing kid. Just that I do not feel there is yet sufficient independently verified evidence for this being what the popular media are calling it as. There is a huge gulf sometimes between how the popular media report something, and what the scientists call it. I've also seen too many scientists (the minority, but a very vocal, publicity-hungry minority) who distort the evidence in order to get attention from the media. As far as I can see, the only statements from anyone with medical training, have come from the one doctor who has been on this case for three years. Other statements are more general, such as a statement on what medical science understands to be necessary in terms of how the human body functions.</p><p></p><p>It would be very interesting to do a functional PET scan on this boy, to determine exactly what part of his brain or brain stem is actually doing what task. That knowledge would be invaluable. It is possible that he is too young still, to do this. But clearly there has to be something there that is performing the function. The question is - what is it, and where is it?</p><p></p><p>Science is all about asking the right questions. it is also fuelled by healthy scepticism. There is again a huge gulf between scepticism and denial. I am a sceptic, not a denier.</p><p></p><p>Somewhere, somehow, there is an explanation. That explanation may well change a lot of what we understand about neurobiology. But it must be investigated carefully and properly, not with sensationalism or secrecy. As I said - I've seen too many scientists abuse their position and use secrecy as a cover for their own deceptions. I could quote cases, publications etc. I've met them. I tried to warn people. I was on the board of a charity being lobbied for funding with these guys, in one case. I did some investigations of my own, in another case. a third case - was published in Lancet, but as a letter only. Nothing verified. But on the basis of one letter to Lancet, the author successfully scavenged millions of dollars in funding from people, with absolutely nothing in return in the form of valid, published research on the topic.</p><p></p><p>This case may be genuine - in which case, medical science needs to know more, openly. Or the doctor may be overstating the case, "over-egging the pudding", as they say. Or the doctor may have mis-read the scans. Scans are not perfect - I've had doctors re-order MRIs on me, because the first one did not show enough detail. I suspect this could be the case here - the scan may not have revealed a trace of cerebellum which may have been relocated in Chase's head. It could simply be a flaw of technology.</p><p></p><p>But whatever it is - we need to know more, because this could be very important.</p><p></p><p>Marg</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Marguerite, post: 407050, member: 1991"] TM, it's the same kid in your article. Jena, I'm not saying I disbelieve the parents, or don't believe this is an amazing kid. Just that I do not feel there is yet sufficient independently verified evidence for this being what the popular media are calling it as. There is a huge gulf sometimes between how the popular media report something, and what the scientists call it. I've also seen too many scientists (the minority, but a very vocal, publicity-hungry minority) who distort the evidence in order to get attention from the media. As far as I can see, the only statements from anyone with medical training, have come from the one doctor who has been on this case for three years. Other statements are more general, such as a statement on what medical science understands to be necessary in terms of how the human body functions. It would be very interesting to do a functional PET scan on this boy, to determine exactly what part of his brain or brain stem is actually doing what task. That knowledge would be invaluable. It is possible that he is too young still, to do this. But clearly there has to be something there that is performing the function. The question is - what is it, and where is it? Science is all about asking the right questions. it is also fuelled by healthy scepticism. There is again a huge gulf between scepticism and denial. I am a sceptic, not a denier. Somewhere, somehow, there is an explanation. That explanation may well change a lot of what we understand about neurobiology. But it must be investigated carefully and properly, not with sensationalism or secrecy. As I said - I've seen too many scientists abuse their position and use secrecy as a cover for their own deceptions. I could quote cases, publications etc. I've met them. I tried to warn people. I was on the board of a charity being lobbied for funding with these guys, in one case. I did some investigations of my own, in another case. a third case - was published in Lancet, but as a letter only. Nothing verified. But on the basis of one letter to Lancet, the author successfully scavenged millions of dollars in funding from people, with absolutely nothing in return in the form of valid, published research on the topic. This case may be genuine - in which case, medical science needs to know more, openly. Or the doctor may be overstating the case, "over-egging the pudding", as they say. Or the doctor may have mis-read the scans. Scans are not perfect - I've had doctors re-order MRIs on me, because the first one did not show enough detail. I suspect this could be the case here - the scan may not have revealed a trace of cerebellum which may have been relocated in Chase's head. It could simply be a flaw of technology. But whatever it is - we need to know more, because this could be very important. Marg [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
General Discussions
The Watercooler
amazing
Top