Venöse Multiple Sklerose Hypothese | CCSVI

Die Referenzen sind zeitlich geordnet, die neuesten zuerst.

Alle Texte auf- bzw einklappen.

Critical publications on established paradigms

1. [behan10a] Behan PO: Futility of the autoimmune orthodoxy in multiple sclerosis research. Expert Rev Neurother. 2010 Jul;10(7):1023-5. PMID 20586684, doi:10.1586/ern.10.69. PDF.
   Division of Clinical Neuroscience, Faculty of Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK and School of Life Sciences, Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow, UK.
2. [raftery10a] Raftery J: Multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme: a costly failure. BMJ. 2010 ;340:c1672. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1672, PMID 20522654, PDF.
   Wessex Institute, School of Medicine, University of Southampton
3. [mccabe10a] McCabe C, Chilcott J, Claxton K, Tappenden P, Cooper C, Roberts J, Cooper N, and Abrams K: Continuing the multiple sclerosis risk sharing scheme is unjustified. BMJ. 2010 ;340:c1786. doi:10.1136/bmj.c1786, PMID 20522655, PDF.
   Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds
4. [charlton08a] Charlton BG: Zombie science: a sinister consequence of evaluating scientific theories purely on the basis of enlightened self-interest. Med Hypotheses. 2008 Sep;71(3):327-9. Epub 2008 Jul 7. PMID 18603380, doi:10.1016/j.mehy.2008.05.018, PDF.
   Abstract

   Although the classical ideal is that scientific theories are evaluated by a careful teasing-out of their internal logic and external implications, and checking whether these deductions and predictions are in-line-with old and new observations; the fact that so many vague, dumb or incoherent scientific theories are apparently believed by so many scientists for so many years is suggestive that this ideal does not necessarily reflect real world practice. In the real world it looks more like most scientists are quite willing to pursue wrong ideas for so long as they are rewarded with a better chance of achieving more grants, publications and status. The classic account has it that bogus theories should readily be demolished by sceptical (or jealous) competitor scientists. However, in practice even the most conclusive 'hatchet jobs' may fail to kill, or even weaken, phoney hypotheses when they are backed-up with sufficient economic muscle in the form of lavish and sustained funding. And when a branch of science based on phoney theories serves a useful but non-scientific purpose, it may be kept-going indefinitely by continuous transfusions of cash from those whose interests it serves. If this happens, real science expires and a 'zombie science' evolves. Zombie science is science that is dead but will not lie down. It keeps twitching and lumbering around so that (from a distance, and with your eyes half-closed) zombie science looks much like the real thing. But in fact the zombie has no life of its own; it is animated and moved only by the incessant pumping of funds. If zombie science is not scientifically-useable--what is its function? In a nutshell, zombie science is supported because it is useful propaganda to be deployed in arenas such as political rhetoric, public administration, management, public relations, marketing and the mass media generally. It persuades, it constructs taboos, it buttresses some kind of rhetorical attempt to shape mass opinion. Indeed, zombie science often comes across in the mass media as being more plausible than real science; and it is precisely the superficial face-plausibility which is the sole and sufficient purpose of zombie science.

Missing publications?

Do you know a publication that is missing above? If so, you can send an email.