Vaccine quote of the week by Bernard Rimland, PhD 36

It wouldn't have pbutted the peer review process not because every member is an "advocate" for evolution, but because there is no evidence for creation science. It's an untestable hypothesis. I wouldn't have a clue if that were true or not, and as you've just said, neither do you. You're simply articulating a prejudice here. No. It screens out research that is badly performed or reaches unjustified conclusions in the opinion of experts reading it. It does not do this perfectly; it does not do it in an entirely unbiased manner, certainly. But it's the best we have, and despite your misgivings, advances are made, and paradigms do change. For instance, the medical establishment protested every inch of the way before finally accepting the Marshall and Warren findings on H. Pylori and ulcers. But they did. And their work, by the way, was also published in the Lancet, despite being contrary to the accepted wisdom of the day. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Cathy, You always make great points. Were you ever on a debate team? I know how the process works. Thank goodness for the newsletters published by alternative doctors such as Doctor Julian Whitaker and alternative magazines such as "Prevention" and "Life Extension". I visit a health food store at least once a week and have seen at least a dozen different alternative health magazines for sale in that store. The vast majority of people in America are more likely to read those magazines than read JAMA and related mazagines. It's my guess that more people read the creation science newsletter published by the Insbreastute for Creation Research than read the magazine published by the Smithsonian Inbreastute. Jason ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~