Climate skeptics are routinely pilloried and shunned for daring to question the perceived scientific consensus on climate change, or even the cooked up 97% consensus. There are tactics of fear and intimidation that are used to try to silence many who choose to try publishing scientific works that question the consensus, as well as those who speak out politically. To hear climate proponents talk, any comparison made about treatment of climate skeptics paralleling the plight of Galileo is nothing but ridiculous. Cook’s “Skeptical Science” says:
The comparison is exactly backwards. Modern scientists follow the evidence-based scientific method that Galileo pioneered. Skeptics who oppose scientific findings that threaten their world view are far closer to Galileo’s belief-based critics in the Catholic Church.
With that in mind, read how science and medicine seems to want to hang on to a perceived consensus while excommunicating those who dare to question it. From The Guardian, of all places. Bold mine, highlighting what I consider being the QOTW.
This shaken baby syndrome case is a dark day for science – and for justice
A leading doctor faces being struck off for challenging the theory about the infant condition. It’s like Galileo all over again
On Friday, I witnessed something akin to a reenactment of the trial of Galileo, precisely four centuries after the original. Dr Waney Squier faces being struck off by the General Medical Council (GMC) for having the temerity to challenge the mainstream theory on shaken baby syndrome (SBS).
For years, the medical profession has boldly asserted that a particular “triad” of neurological observations is essentially diagnostic of SBS. Since the Nuremberg Code properly prevents human experimentation, this is an unproved hypothesis, and there has been rising doubt as to its validity.
I am convinced that Squier is correct, but one does not have to agree with me to see the ugly side to the GMC prosecution: the moment that we are denied the right to question a scientific theory that is held by the majority, we are not far away from Galileo’s predicament in 1615, as he appeared before the papal inquisition. He dared to suggest that the Bible was an authority on faith and morals, rather than on science, and that 1 Chronicles 16:30 – “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved” – did not mean that the Earth was rigidly lodged at the epicentre of the universe. It was not until 1982 that Pope John Paul II issued a formal admission that the church had got it wrong.
Shaken baby syndrome is almost unique among medical diagnoses in that it is not focused on treating the child. If an infant has bleeding on the brain (a subdural hematoma), the doctor wants to relieve the pressure – it is of little relevance how the infant came about the injury. SBS is, then, a “diagnosis” of a crime rather than an illness, and when a brain surgeon comes into the courtroom and “diagnoses” guilt, the defendant, mostly a parent, is likely to go to prison – or worse.
…
While we cannot drop a series of infants on their heads to test this, it would appear to be plain folly. The velocity of a five-foot fall means a child’s head can hit the ground at roughly 15mph, which is faster than most people – short of Usain Bolt – can sprint. I invited a series of neurosurgeons to run headlong into a hardwood wall in one courtroom, so we could see what happened to them. They politely declined, and stuck to their silly theory.
…
Those deemed to be blasphemers often suffer a gruesome fate. Although Squier may be struck off, at least she will not be burned at the stake. But the impact on medical science will be immense, because what other doctor will be prepared to question the prosecution theory if it means the end of a career? This is a very dark day for science, as it is for justice.
Read the entire article here h/t to Bishop Hill
Sound familiar?
I watched the BBC Panorama program about this on Monday. There are indeed very strong parallels with climate change.
I was impressed by Dr Waney Squier.
.
I’m not an expert in this field, but I do see a serious problem with the triad theory. For a criminal conviction, or for good science, it seems clear to me that the triad is insufficient proof. It may well be that the symptoms could be caused by baby shaking. But, surely, there must also be proof that the symptoms could not have been due to other causes such as genetic defects. In the program it was shown that the baby’s skull damage was in fact caused by a genetic defect.
.
At the end of the program a senior scientist did agree with the idea of a wide-ranging scientific investigation of the whole question. Unfortunately, as we well know, inquiries set up by the Establishment can be so easily corrupted, particularly when an Establishment “consensus” is at stake.
.
As Christopher Booker has tirelessly reported over the years, there are huge problems with the UK’s (mostly secret) Family courts. There have been many appalling miscarriages of justice where the accused often don’t even have the right to make a statement in their defence. Many completely innocent families have been ripped apart, sometimes due to the concensus triad theory. Like climate change, our family courts are a national disgrace.
Chris
I believe it was Douglas Adams who correctly pointed out that falling over a steep cliff or out of an airplane, without a parachute, has never killed anyone. Rather, it is the “sudden stop” at the end that it is almost always fatal.
Similarly, it is incorrect to say “climate change is a fraud”. Because the climate is changing, and always has been changing.
Now the attempt to scare people by claiming that man-made CO2 causes catastrophic floods, tornadoes and blizzards is a fraud, because there is really no scientific proof of these claims. It is FUD-induced hysteria. (FUD=Fear,Uncertainty,Doubt)
So you should be saying “climate _scare_ is a fraud” to be (pedantically) correct.
This can and should be resolved the way the now debunked “crazed glass” signature in arson investigations was.
That junk science was exposed when crazed glass was observed in multiple homes after a wildfire (i.e. known not to be arson).
In the same way, I suspect many physicians are actually aware of cases where the triad was observed yet the cause was known to be a fall or other non-shaking event. All it will take is one or perhaps a few such cases to come to light to debunk the certainty around the “triad” being 100% evidence of abuse.
That would require bravery and integrity on the part of only one or a few physicians. It will be interesting to see how much time will pass and how many trials will entertain testimony of “certainty” with respect to the triad having to result from abuse.
Interesting, but sad and disappointing.
Area Man, 3/16/16 @ur momisugly 7:35 am gets +1 for this:
I suspect many physicians are actually aware of cases where the triad was observed yet the cause was unknown.
In science, the ultimate test is always, in everyday terms, What are the odds?
Pseudoscience giveth; science taketh away.
I had some personal experience with this matter, when my daughter was a few months old. Her mom was holding her after a change, and suddenly she let out a brief yelp sort of sound and went completely limp, turning sheet white within a few seconds. I took her and told mom to go to the phone in the kitchen and call 911, and then I went through several minutes of living hell, as I could not detect or provoke any sign of life . .
Eventually she “woke up”, maybe a minute before the ambulance arrived. They checked her out very briefly, and I said we would drive her to the hospital . . and they both reacted strangely. They told me something like; “You could . . “, and glanced at each other. We drove to the emergency room right away.
When we got there, we were treated very roughly and suspiciously . . now I know what was going on, but then it was like a twilight zone episode. Eventually I talked to her regular doctor and he explained a bit, and said he’d make a note in records for us . .l
I asked what he thought had happened with my daughter, and he said since it was the night after her last visit, and she had gotten vaccinated, it was probably a reaction to that. Said he’d seen this sort of thing before right after vaccinations. That was nearly thirty years ago, and I didn’t think much of it, then.
is this calculation only good in a vacuum?