Thread by @asuph

People seem to have this vague notion of special scientific knowledge that's somehow a monopoly of a certain class/group of people. I suspect this comes from our centuries of religion centric outlook. We're so used to those structures, that we bring them to scientific inquiry. 1/

What is "scientific knowledge" is just what is independently verifiable knowledge based on current data. It can change. It can be partially or totally wrong. It presumes falsifiability -- it's a requirement. Anyone can add to it by following the rigorous methodology. 2/

And that is why I hate the word "allopathy". It seems like a closed system created by some guardians of the galaxy, but it's just meant to be "evidence-based medicine". If your magic-pathy medicine can pass through the process, it's "evidence-based" medicine.

3/

But if your claim starts with "I believe", "I've seen", "I've heard", you're pushing for possible quackery to be taken as seriously as evidence-based medicine. This has costs. Especially when it comes as an "alternative" to evidence-based medicine.

/4

And worse is when govt, with its deep reach, starts pushing untested, unproven, anecdotal medicines, in the name of "local/ancient/traditional" etc. It has the potential to do serious damage. Even blanket statement like xyz-pathy has no side-effects is unscientific ... 5/

in the absence of scientific trials' data. A lot of "alternate" medicine does not have the stringent go to the market requirement as the much-maligned "allopathy". So many of the claims are just that: claims. Science considers them hypothesis.

6/

This does not mean that doctors do not make mistakes, or that recommendations from WHO or local bodies are always right. But they have a self-correcting mechanism based on constantly changing data, which the "alternative medicine" practitioners don't have an equivalent of.

7/

What the "alternative medicine" practitioners have, instead, is a quasi-religious system we're all very much used to -- arguments from authority, proselytization, demonizing of the other, tall claims made without proofs, insistence on belief or anecdotal evidence)

8/

"There is no harm in trying xyz" is a dangerous argument in the absence of real data. How do you *know*? Because you tried or someone else you know tried? But your data is limited/biased by the very process of choosing it.

9/

In non-threatening/lifestyle diseases, chronic illnesses, etc. that sort of reasoning may be harmless, but with a raging pandemic that's killing people at alarming rates, "there is no harm" claim needs to pass the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" test.

10/

In summary: this is not the time to dabble with anything that does not pass the stringent requirements of evidence-based medicine. Rooting for anything else right now has the potential to break the basic tenet of medicine: first, do no harm. Please be responsible.

END/