Joseph Tham , hello,

The main differences between scientific and non-scientific knowledge are:

- the personal perspective of the reader (scientist or not) - the presence/ absence of a particular format of research on a topic, widely accepted amongst scientists as representative of science - the perceived (by the scientific community) usefulness of given research/ claims as to a particular issue

Meaning, something considered non-scientific today, if studied in a consistent, scientific manner and, provided there is a well-disposed scientific culture for it, may give useable, temporary scientific data tomorrow.

I am using the word "temporary", as science is a dynamic field. In the search for reliable truths, even established research analyses and conclusions are put into question and, sometimes, even refuted.

I hope this helps, Valeria :)

For science, the gold standard is the RCT (Randomized Control Trials). However, the RCT is a very difficult bar to jump....Not reasonable to require an RCT for many simple facts.

I may believe that the earth is flat. Is this a good example of a superstition?

I may believe that drinking cold water is bad for my health. Do i need to confirm this with RCTs? Suppose no RCTs exist. What should I do?

They might be misconceptions due to lack of knowledge, ignorance, and/or rumors. Data derived from reliable sources such as the WHO could be considered facts and/or possible theories that need further exploration and testing.

Sure. the misconceptions are due to lack of knowledge, ignorance or rumors. but it is not difficult to find two doctors that will give contradictory information.

What is the guarantee that WHO is the fair judge of scientific facts. Suppose i do not believe or trust the WHO. Then what are my options? Who do I trust? Who do i believe?

Suppose I believe that the earth is the center of the universe, and the sun revolves around the earth. So what? Does it even matter? Sure i may be ignorant but i am happy to be ignorant. is it a problem for you if i am ignorant and believe that the earth is the center of the universe. Why do you care about this?

In order to continues this discussion let's first agree on definitions of "science" and "scientific method.'' Dear Joseph, you started this discussion and therefore, what are your definitions?

Artur Braun I fully agree that science provides us with the freedom to doubt. First the doubt may start out as superstition and then it becomes science. Einstein doubted Newton and thought that Newton was wrong, and it turns out that Einstein was right.

Galileo doubts that the earth is the center of the universe. people think he is crazy and he turns out to be right.

I may have doubts about the acupuncture, and think that acupuncture is crazy, and it turns out that acupuncture is right.

When the doubt initially starts out as superstition, not backed by rigorous RCTs that take a lot of time, what do we do if we have to make a decision? how do we decide?

Yurii V Geletii I fully agree with the impulse to start out with a clear definition science and the scientific method. in many discussions, there is so much controversy at this definitional stage that there is zero progress on the distinction between science and non-science. i wish to focus on simpler ways to distinguish science from non-science. RCTs is just too rigorous for more daily purposes.

astronomy is a science, astrology is not a science, it is not clear if it is superstition

the earth is at the center of the universe, clearly it is not a scientific statement

gargling hot water with salt will cure me of Covid19. is it a scientific statement? if we require RCTs, then clearly it is not a scientific statement

drinking orange juice will prevent the flu. i don't know if there are rigorous RCTs that demonstrate this fact. Are there? suppose the rigorous research is uncertain. i could still believe in the efficacy of orange juice. is it okay even it is not a scientific statement?

i may believe that acupuncture may cure Covid19. there are no RCTs to support this statement.

i do not care. i may still pursue acupuncture in the delusional hope that it works....

in our daily life, we are not constantly guided by scientific beliefs. often we use intuition or other ways of knowing. should we have a policy to RIGOROUSLY stamp out such non-scientific beliefs? i am not so sure.

From an educational point of view, in schools we teach many non-scientific disciplines. however, being non-scientific does not mean that they are superstitions.

So there are three categories. science, non-science and superstition.

how do we distinguish non-science from superstition? and if people insist on believing in superstitions, as long as those beliefs do not lead to violent bahaviour, i guess we would tolerate them. not sure. still thinking about it.

Yurii V Geletii To focus and narrow the discussion, we can restrict ourselves to the field of medicine, broadly defined.

Artur Braun For the sound in the bush, running away makes sense. only a few curious ones will stay to investigate further. most of them may be eaten by the lions but some may not. Good example. Running away would qualify as scientific knowledge. Are such algorithms part of scientific knowledge? What would be a comparable example in the field of medicine, broadly defined?

I agree with the following definitions.

Science does not give us a single definitive answer. It proposes different hypothesis which more or less correctly describe the answer.

Google gives " the scientific method consists in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses. "

"The scientific method is an empirical method of acquiring knowledge.

It involves careful observation, applying rigorous skepticism about what is observed, given that cognitive assumptions can distort how one interprets the observation"

The Six Steps of scientific approach

• Purpose/Question. Ask a question.
• Research. Conduct background research. ...
• Hypothesis. Propose a hypothesis. ...
• Experiment. Design and perform an experiment to test your hypothesis. ...
• Data/Analysis. Record observations and analyze the meaning of the data. ...
• Conclusion

Belief

an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.

superstition

a widely held but unjustified belief in supernatural causation leading to certain consequences of an action or event, or a practice based on such a belief.

Pseudoscience is not a focus of this discussion.

Thus, there are science, pseudo-science and belief (which includes superstition).

Yurii V Geletii Thank you. You have certainly provided an excellent working definition for the scientific method and science. i have no quarrels with it. Thus, for you superstition is simply an unjustified belief.

i believe that taking Vitamin D will improve my immune system, and could possibly protect me against. is it justified? how would i know? there are no conclusive RCTs. i will continue to take Vitamin D. Any comments?

"To focus and narrow the discussion, we can restrict ourselves to the field of medicine, broadly defined "

my point: The medicine is not only a science but also an art (strongly depends on doctors skills). The science is all about reproducibility, everybody must obtain the same results. The art is a creation of something unique. Nobody can reproduce a piece of art. In medicine, a doctor is an artist.

Artur Braun You are absolutely right. if i hear that an evil virus is coming, i will run away. but it is an unusually rare event. maybe once in every ten years. there is so much fake news floating around. perhaps it is just media hype. i will not run and lock myself.

however, if i do lock myself, for how long do i lock myself in? i need to eat. i need to work. hmm i am hungry. i know that there is a really evil virus out there but what to do. i will starve to death if i do not go and work and get money to buy food to eat.

Yurii V Geletii Would you agree that there are fifty shades of science? All scientific disciplines are equal but some are more equal than others? some give more definite answers?

" for you superstition is simply an unjustified belief. " No, it is unjustified belief in supernatural causation

Taking vitamins is a belief or not proved hypothesis

there are much more than fifty shades of science

All are equal but some are more equal than others. In Russian this sounds much better. Equal also means flat. Thus " All are flat but some are flatter than others"

Yurii V Geletii Okay. Agreed. we can move forward with the definition that "superstition is an unjustified belief in supernatural causation".

i believe that the amount of vitamin D in my body will "cause" my immune system to improve and enhance my ability to fight Covid19. Since i am not sure whether the cause is supernatural, i will say that it is a non-superstitious belief. i am inclined to believe that it is a natural cause.

but it is not a scientific belief either because there are no RCTs to back up this belief. So there is this grey area between non-scientific belief and non-superstitious belief. Agree? What name should we give to these kinds of beliefs so that we can facilitate discussion?

I'm sorry, I have to work on my project. Can't reply.

Science does not use the concept "belief", they use "hypothesis" instead of belief. I turn off my internet until tomorrow morning.

To obtain a consensus on the general points of agreements, I give a summary of the key points.

Summary of key points

A superstitious belief is an unjustified belief in a supernatural causation.

A non-superstitious belief is an unjustified belief in a natural causation.

Science does not use the concept of belief

A science hypothesis is a justified belief in a natural causation

A non-scientific hypothesis is belief in a supernatural causation

There are fifty shades of science because science does not give a definitive answer.

A non-superstitious belief is DIFFERENT from a non-scientific belief.

For example, I may have a hypothesis (not a belief) that taking Vitamin D will cause my immune system to improve, and enhance and strength my immune system, and protect me from Covid19

At present, there are no RCTs that support this hypothesis.

I am guessing that the cause is natural, but I am not sure because I do not know how to determine whether the cause is natural or supernatural (or trans natural)

The ability to distinguish science from superstition stems from what we believe as scientific facts and we dismiss as mere superstition. Science is a 'cynic' to which only hard core evidence proven by 'studies' will stand the test of time. Whereas superstition can appeal to any eager yielding mind without a solid basis.

Krishna Kumar Govindarajan If i believe in non-scientific cures for Covid19, should it bother you? Would society care about my beliefs?

Some people believe that drinking bleach can cure Covid19

Some people even suggest that we can consume bleach or inject bleach to fight Covid19

Cristina Cuomo writes:

“We want to neutralize the heavy metals because they slow-up the electromagnetic frequency of our cells, which is our energy field, and we need a good flow of energy.”

Clorox is sodium choride – which is technically salt. There is no danger in doing this. It is a simple naturopathic treatment that has been used for over 75 years to oxygenate the cells.”

I have a short break.

Dear Joseph Tham

Your "I may have a hypothesis (not a belief) that taking Vitamin D will cause my immune system to improve, and enhance and strength my immune system, and protect me from Covid19

At present, there are no RCTs that support this hypothesis."

This is a good example of a scientific hypothesis. It does not contradict to our knowledge in this area. It just requires a solid confirmation.

" If i believe in non-scientific cures for Covid19, should it bother you? Would society care about my beliefs?" You have a right to believe in whatever, if your actions based on your belief does not hurt the society. The problem is not in what you believe but how you behave based on your belief.

Cristina Cuomo's writes-up is an example of pseudoscience. She is using a scientific terminology in her statement potentially dangerous for some people . This is the case when the society could not ignore such behavior.

… 

If "science" simply means "knowledge" that is quite different than if "science" is taken to mean ONLY empirically tested and confirmed "nuggets" can be called "scientific." There are many things we "know" that have nothing to do with empirical testing. Frankly, most of the important things we know fall into that classification. One example would be ethics/morals.

Jay Klagge I think science means more than just knowledge, and it is also different from simply knowledge. Let's keep the focus on science and medicine as an example of science. i do not want to broaden the discussion to epistemology which is a HUGE ocean and i will drown in it. For the moment, let us exclude knowledge in moral philosophy and ethics. i do not necessarily disagree with you but i want to stay as focused as i can.

Look at the previous definition on the scientific method.

A scientific hypothesis is a justified belief in a natural causation. Do you agree with this statement. i want to obtain consensus, step by step and then move forward to identify areas of disagreement.

Yurii V Geletii

Distinction between harm to self and harm to others

If I were to inject bleach, paid for by myself with no assistance from the government, I am not harming anyone, and it would probably be okay.

If I were to give bleach to my child, then I could be potentially harming another person, and then PERHAPS society may intervene. Agree? Is this your point?

Yurii V Geletii

President Donald Trump has openly advocated for the use of hydroxycholoroquine for the treatment of Covid19 even though the scientific evidence is flimsy, at best. I am not a scientist.

What should we do, if anything?

Yurii V Geletii

If people have harmless beliefs about pseudo-science, then society may not wish to do anything.

However, if the people harm others based on the beliefs about pseudo-science, then society MIGHT have to think about how to intervene. We need to define the meaning of harm to others and think about a proportionate response and not overreact to all the pseudo-scientific beliefs that people may have. Again, we must be careful to distinguish pseudo-scientific beliefs from non-scientific hypotheses. How do we distinguish pseudo-scientific beliefs from untested and non-scientific hypotheses that could be confirmed in the future? Agree?

Science is fact-based. Otherwise it is superstition unless proven.

People chose to belief different things that are either science or otherwise. To maintain respect among people, personal beliefs must be valued and tolerated irrespective of your personal opinion about them.

Joan Nyika Suppose i believe that drinking bleach will help protect me from Covid19 and i promote this idea among my friends and relatives. is it okay?

Joseph Tham

"Distinction between harm to self and harm to others" I agree.

President Trump. We have the rights to follow or not to his advise.

Pseudo-science is a big problem worth of separate discussion.

A scientific hypothesis is a justified belief in a natural causation, with a focus on medicine as a scientific discipline. For the moment, we do not discuss other forms of knowledge, such as knowledge from ethics or moral philosophy.

From a theoretical and conceptual viewpoint, the definition makes sense. From a practical viewpoint in daily life, the definition raises many secondary questions.

What is the meaning of justified? How would be distinguish a justified belief from an unjustified belief?

What is the meaning of natural? How do we distinguish natural causation from unnatural causation?

Finally, what is the meaning of causation? In many practical situations, it is difficult to distinguish causation from association or correlation.

Again, I am looking for practical guidance rather than a deep philosophical discussion.

As long as people do not harm others, then from society’s point of view, the fact that people hold non-scientific hypotheses is probably benign. However, the trouble starts when the same people act these beliefs, and then cause harm to others. The question arises: what should society do in this case?

Belief can't be justified or unjustified. A hypothesis can be disproved.

Natural means that you can't explain something unknown by introducing other unknown things. " the same people act these beliefs, and then cause harm to others." There is no clear borderline between benign and unacceptable behavior. Each case should be considered separately.

" Again, I am looking for practical guidance rather than a deep philosophical discussion." There are strict guidance for doctors how to deal with different cases, while they have much freedom. The rule of thumb for doctors is " first, do no harm. " There are on sale different food supplements, they are labeled "These statements have not evaluated by ....."

Yurii V Geletii Are you sympathetic to Karl Popper's ideas about falsification?

I'm not aware of these ideas. This deserves a separate discussion.

Greetings Dr. Tham: Regarding your comment " However, the trouble starts when the same people act these beliefs, and then cause harm to others. The question arises: what should society do in this case?" Like almost every other question, the answer is - "It All Depends." Was there criminal intent? Was there monetary gain? Was their brainwashing (Jones Town)?, Etc. The other issue is culpability. If I privately do something dumb and do not proselytize, should I be held responsible and accountable for choices and actions of others who freely elect, and under no pressure to do so, follow my stupidity? And finally, who is "society?" Are we talking about the "court of public opinion" or laws enacted by a duly elected governmental body that are found to be in accordance with the enduring principles of a social contract (e.g. Constitution)?

BTW, you have interested me in learning more about Karl Popper's ideas about falsification ... Thank you for that lead.

If you drink bleach and have to go to hospital, who pays? Society? I bet most US insurance companies won't want to know! And clorox isn't sodium chloride, it's sodium hypochlorite which is quite different.

Tony Maine Great comment. Thank you. I don't know the answer to your question. in the US media, i keep hearing about people using bleach again Covid19. makes no sense to me but i am no medical doctor or chemist.

Yurii V Geletii Fully agree. thank you. let's try our best to stay focused on topic, science and superstition in medicine. please please remind me of this because it is very easy to be all over the map. it is much more difficult to stay focused.

Jay Klagge

Based on the discussion, there are two assumptions and four categories.

Assumption1: Beliefs cannot be justified or unjustified.

Assumption2: hypotheses can be disproven

Scientific hypotheses that are based on justified facts in natural causation. Or scientific hypotheses have not been disproven (I prefer the negative formulation because we may never be able to prove anything but we are unable to disprove it.)

Since science cannot give a definitive answer, there are many competing answers that merit our attention, and we may not be able to select among them.

Non-scientific hypotheses are unjustified facts that may be “proven” in the future with better evidence and facts.

Pseudo-scientific hypotheses: not sure where these fit in?

Superstitions are unjustified beliefs in supernatural causation.

Comments? Yurii V Geletii Tony Maine Joan Nyika

Jay Klagge Your thoughtful comment is most appreciated. it raises many interesting, difficult questions. i may have to think about how to respond. i want to make sure we stay focused on topic, namely science and superstition in medicine. i do not mean to be negative about your comment. let me think some more and try and write a reasoned response.

Pseudo-scientific "hypotheses" can't be called hypotheses. The better word would be "theories"

The majority of pseudo-scientist falls in three category;

ambitious but not educated people

mentally sick

cheaters

Yurii V Geletii You have made a statement about the categories for pseudo scientists. is this statement scientific? it is a belief that cannot be justified or unjustified? is it a theory that you wish to test? is it just a hypotheses? can you provide natural empirical evidence in support of your statement? can your statement be disproven?

I think Yuri is mostly correct. However, I expect there are also quite a few educated people who actually believe these things without much proof. There are even many scientist and engineers who fall into the trap of believing things because it is what they wantit to be true even if there is no proof an sometimes even if there is proof that that they are incorrect.

Greeting Dr. Tham, It is very interesting discussion. However, i am not able to give perfect answer of this high level discussion, albeit, I would share one empirical truth. At this COVID-19 time, all temples/monasteries/mosques are closed, and people are staying home. In South Asia, religious values and belief are strongly rooted in the society. Interestingly, people are curiously seeing the science for vaccine of COVID-19. Such scenarios may happen in other parts, but i am talking about South Asia. Though, I am fond of spiritual part of the religions, but not superstition. How can we understand this scenario?

Joseph Tham "about the categories for pseudo scientists" This is my own "belief." I have graduated from the best Russian physical technical university. I worked with many extraordinary scholars. I used to be very critical to all results/publications in my area. I often joke: " Don't trust to anyone" then I make a pause and add "except me." I have troubles to tolerate any misinterpretations of basic scientific laws. Rick Manner knows this very well. Therefore, my classification of pseudo-scientists is based on my temper and is not scientific.

Rick Manner Glad to see you in this discussion. I agree with you. I had to write " ambitious people who consider themselves as genius scientists but not educated and filling themselves not appropriately recognized by a society."

Dear Deepak Chaudhary . The science and religion have nothing in common and should simply co-exist. They do not contradict each other. I'm a scientist and believe in God.

Yurii V Geletii There are times when Religion and science disagree. Neither science or religion are perfect and both are often wrong. There has been lot of good and lots of evil done in the name of religion and in the name of science.

May i humbly request that we do not discuss religion because it is a very sensitive, controversial and personal topic. Let us try our best to focus on the issue of science and superstition in the scientific discipline of medicine. I deeply thank you for your understanding, politeness and tolerance.

Dear Dr. Geletti: I agree with you but then I am finding out that I have a very wide view concerning the word Science. While I embrace and practice Empiricism as one means of gaining knowledge, it is only one way and for many applications falls short of producing "Knowledge." I have challenged my undergraduate statistics students to consider multiple epistemologies when searching for knowledge. To that end I have found the simple attachment to be a great conversation starter. At the extremes it presents the conflict birthed during the "Enlightenment" and remains in many corners and corridors to this day.

Thank you for you posting. Jay Klagge

Let’s try our best to focus and stay on topic. Epistemology is a huge ocean and we will drown

in Science, research finding to prove or disapprove a certain phenomenon, data collected from research work and subject to interpretation to come up with some logical conclusions that are quantifiable. while superstition is traditional outstanding belief about a certain occurrence or something. one example is the belief of getting sick in which scientists argue that diseases are due to disease causing pathogens, while Superstitious beliefs have different about the same. Some belief that people get sick due to wrongdoing a deviation from the ancestors wishes.

Dear Dr. Tham: I apologize for going beyond the bounds of the question you posed. BTW, I did post my previous entry BEFORE I saw your request that we do not go into religion. If I respond to this string again I will stay on topic. Thank you.

Please don’t misunderstand. I have nothing against religion. Just trying to create a small pond where we can splash around. Thank you for your support and understand. Religion is a very sensitive topic. We may not be able to totally exclude religion. It may make sense within the context of medical science. Let me think some more and clarify my thinking.

EBM or evidence based medicine nowadays prevents superstition in medical field.

Ramin Farajpour

Mask against Covid19

I have a hypothesis that wearing a mask can protect me from the Covid19.

Unfortunately, there are no definitive answers from RCTs on masks. Thus, this cannot be a scientific hypothesis. It is a belief; however, a belief cannot be justified or unjustified.

It is a non-scientific belief. I am reluctant to call this a superstitious belief. Is it a pseudo-scientific belief? Not sure. Clearly, it is non-scientific.

What should I do? Do I wear a mask in public? That is the key question.

I must make a decision BEFORE I can read the research results from RCTs

As far as I Know, the acupuncture, sound therapy, psychotherapy, color therapy and ayurvedic treatments all of them originated from the so called superstition. All of them known to our families By following their ancestors as tradition. However in this era so called modern era Peoples are dependent on others to even know the requirements of their own body and understand their own feelings.

In science, where we do the research to find out the reason or solution behind or for the happanigs or happened or going to happen with the hope/belief and thought/existing knowledge so called hypothesis.

I hope you are aware with the dialogue " Mathametics is mother of science ". I believe the same. I really do know it's my knowledge, belief or superstition! Sometimes superstition is like existence of mathematics without science and sometime existence of science without mathametics. What you would like to called the existence mother of science mathematics without science? Superstition or something else? From my point of view if anyone do not Know the reason or science behind that they are doing or thinking is necessarily been called as superstition. People's believe in science because of their results not because of the process that is utilized to do the science. Scientists or practitioners are bound to believe in science or their way of practice because of their profession. No can do anything to those people who don't have believe in science or their related practices. As far as science contributing to improve the way of life is fine otherwise there is no meaning of science for common peoples.

When it's a matter of survive superstition come in human behaviour. As right now peoples are giving money to get the solution of their problem and if broker done some wrong and honour start to blame the broker it doesn't mean he is superstitious.

I hope this comment give a different way thinking to this on going discussion.

Regards,

Sandeep

Sandeep Kumar Thank you very much for your post. There are lots of ideas in your post. Let me understand them first, and write a response. Again, i thank you for taking the time to write. Fascinating ideas.

Jay Klagge I just read the four-page document that you posted. Fascinating. lots of ideas in there. need some some time to understand them. they seem relevant to our discussion here. need to think. thank you so much for posting that document. i request others to read that document and respond and help us understand how we can interpret and incorporate those ideas. thank you sir.

Jay Klagge I am posting a table based on a handout by Professor Klagge. To test my understanding, i have inserted tentative disciplines in each of the cells. Please have a look, and i would welcome your comments on my examples in each cell.

Ivana Radojičić added an answer

2 minutes ago

It is very easy to say that something is not scientific, and, therefore, should a priori be regected even though it could be a possible helping aid in fight with covid-19.

The only way how we could distinguish between usefull and useless information is by knowing pathophysiology of covid 19 and mechanism patheays of certain food, supplements, vitamins.

For example, vitQ10 could help fight cardial hypoxia.

But when approaching claims (whether true or false) we always have to be open minded, think very hard and try to see is there a possibility that this could help. Even scientists have made many mistakes in many claims stating that some claims are useless, and later came back to see that i was not useless, and that it might help.

The logaritm should be like this:

Is this potenntially harmfull and can kill or dammage?

Yes ---> out

No----> does it contribute to the wellbeing in any way?---->no--->out

Yes----> what are the mechanisms of action of this? -----> compare to covid 19 symptoms and pathophysiology and see if it imtersects or could help ease symptoms or help sertaim tissue, organ or organ system. Pay attention for the possible interactions with food or medications.

I am saying this from the dietetic point of view, because I've heared all crazy stuff but, at the end, some or it could really work and help.

Ivana Radojičić Thank you for your answer. Many ideas there. let me read and think and then write a response.

Michael Kowalik

But if my President says that some bleach or vitamin D might help my immune system, what am I supposed to believe?

The president is not a doctor!!! Follow ONLY medical recommendations. Please do not take bleach of supplements of vitD unless you have a deficiency of this vitamin because it could cause heart problems, palpitations... Only as doctors recommend and other legitime medical staff.

Ivana Radojičić I regret to admit that many people believe our dearest President.

Joseph Tham ,

Many people do not believe your president, but, rather, his medical advisers. Your president is a finansist and a businessman by original trade (your previous ones - lawyers, mainly).

Outside his field of expertise, he is obliged to work on the advice of a board of medical specialists and intelligence gathered on the subject from other countries.

The same applies to any mentioned medications, which, by the way, require a prescription from a physician, or (due to the constant need of patient monitoring) are used in hospitals only.

So all your president does, is trying to navigate in an environment of unconfirmed, confllicting, or ill-structured incoming data, consequently stating what his advisers think on the matter. This is all a president legally does, in this respect.

Your president is also obliged to inform citizens of current developments with the outbreak and where your country stands in terms of reaction vis-a-vis other countries, and he does that.

I am not defending your president, but simply stating facts and procedures that impact his behavior and statements.

At the same time, I advise not to listen to the opinions of journalists and talk show hosts - they have their own agendas.

Also, in Europe we notice that people from the States are generally obsessed with bleach. All we hear is: "Clorox wipes! Clorox wipes!" Its ingredients though irritate the skin, the eyes, as well as the mucosa of the respiratory system.

When in doubt as what to do healthwise - it is best to:

a/ (if you are interested) read from textbooks used for the purposes of medical education, AND

b/ ask for a second, a third, or even fourth medical opinion, besides your GPs - in this case, from an epidemiologist, a microbiologist, an infectionist, or just another physician with a proven record of successfully assisted patients.

We, physicians, differ from one another based on how good of a diagnostician each of us is.

It is considered a skill to be able to analyse symptoms and technical data globally, rather than just based on one's narrow specialization. Some have it, others - do not.

Good grasp of anatomy, physiology and internal medicine, widened/ updated regularly with research driven by deductive science, also helps.

:)

Valeria Tananska It may be difficult for you to believe but many people have followed the advice and drank disinfectant. Right now, it is very crazy. It is not illegal to be stupid, yet. What to do?

Michael Kowalik

Joseph Tham ,

Some time ago, we heard that a couple drank fish tank cleaning tablets. Regrettably, the husband is no longer living.

But it was, I trust, a singular occurrence. Have there been new incidents?

One must be careful to differentiate between personal medical advice given by the president (which he does not do) and daily White House briefings, whereby the president informs citizens of current progress, based on his advisers' analysis and foreign-gathered intelligence.

Better socio-political understanding seems to be required.

:)

That is a very good point, Michael. Confusion at that level on the cause of a death may make much of the statistics largely meaningless, or even misleading. How will it ever be possible to assess the extent that Covid-19 was implicated in a death where there were co-morbidities? No physician could do that with any confidence. And just try to get an AI to do it . . . It certainly does seem that the wide variation in death rates between countries stems from different countries' definition of death (in these cases)!

What is the proper medical protocol for recording the cause of death? Are they in violation of the protocol? We need some professional answers from medical experts.

Yurii V Geletii Jay Klagge Michael Kowalik

Hydroxycholoquine can improve the immune system and prevent Covid19

Sunlight, high temperature and humidity kills the Covid19 virus.

Taking a bleach bath could help. Drinking Clorox or other disinfectants might help.

Doing yoga and drinking hot water can help.

Drinking lots of alcohol could work as well.

Maybe eating garlic, turmeric and avocado. Green tea?

Anything that you can do to enhance the immune system should work.

The list of recommendations is endless. They are very confusing for the common person. How should we assess these statements?

Scientific hypotheses?

Non-scientific hypotheses?

Unscientific beliefs?

Pseudo-scientific beliefs?

False and unjustified beliefs?

Superstitious beliefs?

If we insist and demand that only statements that are supported with RCTs are truly scientific hypotheses, then i think all of the above statements are NOT scientific.

They are in a la-la limbo land between scientific statements and pseudo-scientific statements. Agree? At best, they are partial possibly scientific statements that may be true in the future, with rigorous advanced scientific research.

notice the flip flopping on the wearing of masks. it will work. no, it will not work. and so on and so on. and now we are all wearing masks because they don't work. it is very very confusing. are we superstitious and following pseudo science if we wear masks?

Jay Klagge Consider the following conclusions from three papers on the effects of garlic.

One paper concludes: “although there is sufficient scientific evidence on the beneficial effects of garlic as therapy under different pathological conditions in animal models, human clinical studies are scarce and methodologically weak, with short duration and a reduced number of patients.”

The second paper is a narrative review. “Although some studies show medicinal benefits of garlic, there are others which do not.”

The third paper states: ”Although it is shown that garlic may have a significant potential either in their own right or as adjuvant therapy in different disorders, however, due so some issues, such as methodological inadequacies, small sample sizes, lack of information regarding dose rationale, variation between efficacy and effectiveness trials, the absence of a placebo comparator, or lack of control groups more standard experiments are needed to confirm the beneficial effect of garlic in various diseases.”

What can we say about the effects of garlic?

Scientific hypotheses?

Non-scientific hypotheses?

Unscientific beliefs?

Pseudo-scientific beliefs?

False and unjustified beliefs?

Superstitious beliefs?

A scientific hypothesis should not contradict the fundamental natural laws and scientifically proven facts, while could be based on scientifically unproven facts. Scientists usually estimate the probability based on their knowledge, which hypothesis is likely to be true.

Hydroxycholoquine can improve the immune system and prevent Covid19 possibly

Sunlight, high temperature and humidity kills the Covid19 virus. Possibly

Taking a bleach bath could help. Drinking Clorox or other disinfectants might help. Pseudo-science. Dangerous, scientifically proved

Doing yoga and drinking hot water can help. Unlikely, but can be considered

Drinking lots of alcohol could work as well. Possibly, but what about side-effects?

Maybe eating garlic, turmeric and avocado. Green tea? Possibly

Anything that you can do to enhance the immune system should MIGHT work

Garlic - Scientific hypothesis

Yurii V Geletii I am an ordinary person, and i read all of these ideas in the mainstream media. What should i do? Most of the statements are possibly scientific statements. One study on the effects of garlic were based on 33 albino rats. That does not give me much confidence. sorry to say.

" Primum non nocere." (Do no harm). Second: Keep the good state of mind. Third: Listen your body. Fourth: Everything is good in moderation. Fifth: Do not listen the journalists. Sixth: Hope for the best.

About science. Science raises more questions than provides answers. The scientists are not magicians, they are victims of their curiosity. Commonly we have one right answer after thousands of fails.

Yurii V Geletii Jay Klagge

There is a continuum of beliefs. On the left, there is perfect ignorance or superstitious beliefs.

On the right, there is perfect scientific knowledge.

In daily life, there is a lot of knowledge that is between these two extremes. This knowledge is not scientific; at the same time, it is not superstition.

Somewhere in between, there is knowledge from pseudo-science. There is also non-scientific knowledge (which is different from pseudo-science) that could become knowledge in the future with better and rigorous scientific research.

Yurii V Geletii Suppose i am a non-vegetarian. Do i violate the "do no harm" principle?

Yurii V Geletii Perhaps you have an unjustified belief in the one right answer that science provides. There is indetermism, incompleteness and undecidability. Your belief is not justified, from a scientific point of view.