[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by New Era

Listen, I'm not trying to defend the guy, I'm defending the idea. I think there should be a lot more research into the theory he presents. He may be nuts, but there is something to what he says, even if it is wrapped in a pretty strange package.

What, exactly is it to what he proposes that you find so compelling, and why? Again, this isn't a "theory" Chachoua has presented, it's more of a philosophic idea than anything.

What I presented was something that was originally discounted as being bogus. The idea of using a virus to cure a disease was considered a little crazy. Sometimes revolutionary thinking is a little crazy.

The difference here is that the research taking place at U of A is SCIENTIFIC. This is the point that you seem to keep missing...

Boltzmann and Mendel were thought to be quacks in their day too. Don't be too quick to dismiss the work of someone because it doesn't follow the method you choose. I mean, who ever would have thought that first wonder drug would be found in moldy cheese? That's crazy!

That would be the scientific method.

I disagree. There are some interesting parallels. Just one guy is viewed as a quack while the other is viewed as revolutionary, mostly because of method.

Yes. Because—again—the scientific method works remarkably well. What is Chachoua's method?

No, the expectations of the establishment is to follow the rules they set forth and #### anyone who dare to challenge them. This is why big pharma has such a grip on the American health care system and that grip is extending north of the border. When there is a buck to be made, the establishment will jump in full force and fire up the discredit machine for any new idea.

Those rules would be the terribly draconian stipulations of clinical testing, double-blind analysis, and peer review. What is your problem with the rules?

Again, I'm not defending the guy, I'm defending the idea. I'd like to see a lot more research into the idea. All too often we see ideas buried because they fly in the face of reason.

What exactly is it that you find so compelling about Chachoua's unsubstantiated "nemesis theory"? And no, his idea is not being buried because it "flies in the face of reason." It is being buried because it is unscientific. Chachoua is welcome to do his own research, and to publish his findings, but unless he can support the "idea" with the methodological rigour that has proven to be irreproachably successful, then I think we are actually obligated to remain dubious.

I mean, who would have thought that the concept of heliocentrism would ever catch on. Personally, I'm always willing to explore ideas, especially if they can lead to significant breakthroughs in solving big world problems. For example, I'm still a firm supporter of pursuing cold fusion technology, which is complete quackery to large swaths of a certain community. So that probably makes me a bad person. But then again, I am in the skeptic thread where big ideas are judged on conformity more than anything. Now, back to your little dog pile.

Yeah. Conformity to the scientific method.

So, after all that, we discover that your real problem is with the strictures of science, and not the unmitigated persecution of all those quacks who are so unfairly treated on the basis of their shoddy research and dubious motivations. Is that about right?

I am really curious about what an alternative "method" you keep going on about might look like. Any suggestions for how we ought to fix science?