 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: near Allentown, PA
Posts: 209
|
|
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: near Allentown, PA
Posts: 209
|
vic, lowly?
vic.... don't try that 'lowly social worker' crap with me!....u know you've done good work researching rsd and as one who held off migration for a LONG time with antioxidants, i'm in a position to speak!
also....i posted this long ago on braintalk, when a member there questioned vic's ability and/or his "right" to do medical research....if u read it before, then skip it...if u haven't, then please note that while it may be hard for someone outside the medical profession to get their work taken seriously, that doesn't mean they're incorrect....an addition.... this was written before 2 australian doctors, who had been the laughing stock of the medical world 20 years earlier, were awarded the nobel prize in medicine for their work in CURING gastric ulcers.
Who should do medical research?
Should a Dutch merchant, who made a hobby of lenses, be given credit for amazing advances in medical science?
Thousands of scientists who have used the microscope invented by Leewenhock vote "yes".
Should an Australian women with no formal or certified training be allowed to treat children stricken with a crippling, sometimes fatal disease, in a manner opposed to the advice of neurologists and orthopedists?
Thousands of people who survived polio with no ill after effects thanks to Sister Kenny's heat and movement treatment, rather than the splint and immobilization favored at that time by doctors, vote "yes".
Should a young French chemist, whose career goals included the improvement of local wine and increasing the yield of silkworms, be allowed to work on a vaccine for a deadly disease carried by animals? or work on the public health problem of making food supplies safe?
Millions of children who grew up safe from tuberculosis carried in cow's milk, and hundreds of people whose lives were saved by Pasteur's rabies vaccine vote "yes".
Within the medical community, should researchers be allowed to investigate outside their own specialties?
Should a scientist, whose recognition is based on his work about cuckoo birds, be allowed to research and develop a vaccine for a killer, and often epidemic, viral disease?
Generations of people who have lived safe from smallpox, thanks to the work of Jenner, vote "yes".
Should a humble country doctor try to make a priceless contribution to public health and sanitation by discovering the tuberculosis bacteria? and contribute to the work of other giants in medical history, like Lister, by proving that certain germs cause certain diseases?
Millions whose lives have been saved by Koch's work on identifying bacteria, vote "yes".
Should an orthopedist be encouraged to do research in the field of endocrinology assisted only by a lab technician?
Every diabetic who has been able to lead a relatively normal life since approximately 1930, because of the work on insulin done by Dr Banting and Charles Best, votes "yes".
It seems obvious that some of the most innovative ideas come from those who are crossing disciplines, or by those looking at the facts with an entirely new perspective.
My own view is simple....anyone who is willing to struggle through medical papers and research reports looking for information that may be useful to those living with a terrible disease, is a first-class medical researcher.
__________________
best to all,
liz
|