Myth of Ostracism in Helicobacter pylori Discovery

[01101001]

A few times, in discussions of out-of-the-mainstream science, the discovery of Helicobacter pylori involvement in stomach ulcers has been mentioned in this forum, once by myself.

Skeptical Inquirer, Vol. 28, No. 6 (November/December 2004) has an article entitled: "Bacteria, Ulcers, and Ostracism? H. pylori and the Making of a Myth". It's an interesting read.

Medicine's purported ostracism of the discovery of H. pylori -- to some extent, as we shall see, fostered by one of its discoverers -- has achieved a mythical quality.

But it isn't true. I have no reason to doubt that many physicians scoffed when first faced with the notion of a bacterial basis for peptic ulcer disease (PUD). It is not the case, however, that the medical mainstream dogmatically rejected the proposal for an undue period of time. A brief history shows that the hypothesis was accepted right on schedule, but only after "appropriate initial skepticism" [...] was satisfactorily answered.

[Pinemarten]

And your point is?

[beskeptical]

Actually, I had to educate a few foot dragging doctors on this myself. And, the public health had to launch an "educate the doctors" campaign.

I guess I have higher expectations about the speed things ought to take to get around in the information age.

[01101001]

And your point is?

Um... it's an interesting read?

[Ut]

And your point is?

Um... it's an interesting read?

Yeah! Give some credit where it's due. Not everything has to have a point beyond "Hey, cool!" Otherwise, ToSeek would have like 5 posts...

8-[

[kucharek]

Ahh, Heliobacter. That little rascal gave me the surprise of my life when causing a puncture in my duodenum...

Harald

[Eta C]

I believe the point our binary friend is making relates to the frequent complaint of ATM types that their ideas are stifled by a hidebound scientific orthodoxy that refuses to accept any deviations from the mainstream. This is a myth. While scientists do require a high standard of proof for new ideas, especially those that come out of the blue, they are always looking for places where current theories break down and fail to describe experimental results. Those concepts that do compile compelling experimental evidence (H. Pylori, plate tectonics, etc.) become part of the mainstream. Those that don't (cold fusion, expanding earth ideas, and a host of others) are justly relegated to the fringes. They may eventually gain experimental proof (as plate tectonics did) at which point those who supported the idea initially are entitled to an "I told you so". But the number that achieve this change are few compared to the vast number justifiably tossed onto the scrap heap.

[Pinemarten]

Thank you Eta C

Quote:
"So, as I wish the original poster had informed us, as our time and resources have value, and we should be told what we are being asked to look at, out of simple politeness, the video is..."

from:http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...20&postcount=3

[Van Rijn]

Wow. Quite an old thread you dug up. Soon to be locked, no doubt.

[Ronald Brak]

I'll just mention that a lot of physicians don't actually use the scientific method and aren't scientists. I believe quite a few describe what they do as an art.

[Argos]

I'll just mention that a lot of physicians don't actually use the scientific method and aren't scientists.

Yes, see how many homeopaths are around...

[radone]

I'll just mention that a lot of physicians don't actually use the scientific method and aren't scientists. I believe quite a few describe what they do as an art.

This is somewhat true, which is why it is called "The Art of Medicine". However, one of the challenging things in medicine is that there are so many variables to take into consideration when you have a patient sitting in front of you that using your intuition is sometimes what's needed, rather than just logic alone. There is a push toward 'evidence-based' medicine, with the hope that treatment is based on studies that are double-blinded and randomized. However, this isn't always practical, so again, it falls to intuition.
Also, in some circumstances, there will never be a double-blinded, randomized study because it would be unethical to do such studies.