Title: “I maintain there is much more wonder in science than in
pseudoscience
Bruce this is absolutely BS - and hopefully you know it. Science did
not tell us Vioxx was okay nor did it take Vioxx away. Science is a
process that is used to falsify hypothesis on the working of nature.
Nothing more - nothing less. What we saw with Vioxx was data being
suppressed. Over time that data came to light - unfortunately it came
to light as people died of the risk of Vioxx.
Wikipedia has a fairly good discussion of the scientific method. The
scientific method is directed in differentiated "truth vs. belief."
Historically we have to go back to the Arabs to the development of the
scientific method Ibn al-Haytham. The Greeks tried to tie science to
belief and later Sir. Issac Newton and many others were not satisfied
basing science on "belief and religion" - Galileo was imprisoned
because his observations were in conflict of the Catholic Church's
contention that the earth was the center of the universe - and
developed the scientific method we know today. Then Karl Popper (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper)
wrapped the logical
foundations under Newton's scientific method.
What you seem to be proposing is pseudoscience approach to the AERC
durg policy. Is that sufficient? It is not. Plant hormones are ingested
by horses daily - they have been since there has been a horse and a
plant. However, why are plant hormones on the AERC "banned list" unless
the concentrations are specified? The first screw up was the Mag
Sulfate which has been proposed by endurance vets for years in homemade
electrolyte mixes. Now the AERC tells us it is a banned substance. Yep
there was a lot of tap dancing over that one.
My contention and critique is that the AERC drug policy was not
developed by "experience, education, training, discernment, and
knowledge of the endurance horse." It seems more so it was a policy
developed as former President Harry Truman once defined "a camel is a
horse designed by committee." It's time to base a drug policy on good
science - this one clearly isn't. Sure it has parts that are good - but
all in all it's probably worse than the one it replaced.
My recommendation would be for the AERC to get back to work and refine
this drug policy and base it on science rather than fear, superstition,
wives' tales, preconceived notions and pseudoscience.
Truman
--
“I maintain there is much more wonder in science
than in
pseudoscience. And in addition, to whatever measure this term has any
meaning,
science has the additional virtue, and it is not an inconsiderable one,
of
being true.” Carl Sagan