Paralogisms of scientific journalism

• Life only comprehends life through the mediation of the sense units that raise above the historical flow (Dilthey)

An article by Dan Hurley published in the New York Times of 16 January 2007 artoused curiosity in readers worldwide. Under the title “Diet Supplements and Safety: some Disquieting Data”, he presented data on the repercussions of use of freely sold products such as vitamin supplements, essential oils and herbs.

According to reports sourced from the American Association of Poison Control Centers, the consumption of vitamin supplements and essentials oils may represent a significant epidemiological risk for the population: 14,006 cases of adverse reactions to vitamin supplements and similar products were reported in 1983; 121,595 in 2005. These numbers are modest compared to those for conventional drugs, published by the National Institute of Health in its 2006 report ‘Congressional Justification’ states ‘Unfortunately, adverse drug reactions are a major source of death in the U.S’.[ ¹ ] From 1989 to 2004 the Food and Drug Administration, Hurley goes on, received reports of 260 deaths associated to herbal medicines and other non-vitamin products. Hurley included homeopathic drugs medicines and ‘products’. Without giving much detail, he stay that in 2005 there were 7049 adverse reports of reactions, including 564 hospitalizations and two deaths.

These are relevant facts, since most of these products are sold freely, anyone may fill a basket or supermarket cart with products of this type. This dispels the common sense belief that ‘natural’ products (with all the criticisms of the mythology that the word ‘natural’ involves) is, at worst, innocuous. Many researchers who investigate ultra-diluted substances believe that they may be harmful to health if ingested without due care, guidance and medical assistance. There is no secret here. It is established that all drug substances may induce adverse reactions, from mild to the most potent. They depend directly on the patient's sensitivity and idiosyncrasies.

But some sections of the media, including important medical journals, have published claims that infinitesimal substances are suspected, not of toxicity, but of the opposite: of not possessing any detectable biological effect in vitro or in vivo. It is here we find the paralogism.

Of course these are partial conclusions, therefore, challengeable. Experimentation in human beings, observational studies and studies of health-related quality of life quality of line in health, for instance, strongly contradict these conclusions of inaction. If the Food and Drug Administration finds empirically that adverse effects are associated with homeopathic medicines, and that they are significant, how is it that they are accused of being pharmacologically inert?. The notorious question: “does it work or not?” carries an unbearable ambiguity: it work, but only to intoxicate. But infinitesimal dilutions are not even “substances” strictu sensu. If there is not even a trace of active drug, nor any other validated evidence, how can one determine such actions? We are face—and this article in the New York Times is just a single example—with a superficial analysis of data which impact on both society at large and the community of users.

The surprise here is the size of paralogism. An influential newspaper reports that homeopathic medications may be poisonous. However, until recently they considered they were nothing but water. Any apparent effects are only mirages placebo-effects. So, either we are witnessing a remarkable epidemic of placebo effects in the poison monitoring centers or a phenomenon that, if verified, should be a top priority list, with public support of research. Are homeopathic medicine fake? Or are there active poisons in infinitesimal doses? If there are, everything has to be reassessed.

But there is a more radical alternative: to evaluate sociologically what is happening in scientific journalism. We know that logic alone is insufficient to meet all the demands and possibilities of validity. As shown by Thomas Kuhn, it is supported by the values and needs of a certain culture, at a certain moment. In his classic book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” he warns that there is a pressing need for the analysis of development of theories and scientific verifications: the psycho-sociology of science, understanding of its motivations and meanings of its discourse. This means that it is important to recognize the non-universality of regulatory standards. In this case, the need is urgent.

• Reference

• [1] ⟨http://www.niehs.nih.gov/about/congress/justification/⟩.