Science rightly values scientific evidence over anecdotal evidence. Scientific evidence is objective, derived from replicable methodologies, and verifiable. Ideally, it is then published and subjected to peer-review. Anecdotal evidence, on the other hand, is considered more subjective, subject to bias, and may not be replicable. There are good reasons, after all, why the scientific method was developed, and why societies that have a tradition within their academic and scientific communities of respecting and honoring the principles of the scientific method are the societies that have provided humanity with its greatest scientific, technological, and medical advances.
That doesn’t mean that anecdotal evidence should be blanketly dismissed. Anecdotal evidence serves often as the starting point for application of the scientific method.
Penicillin was discovered by a Scottish researcher, Alexander Fleming, in 1928. Returning from vacation, he discovered that a mold called Penicillium notatum had contaminated a staphylococcus culture plate in his lab. He noticed that the culture prevented the growth of staphylococci, and theorized that it had bactericidal properties. Isolating and purifying the penicillin, identifying a more prolific strain, and finding a way to manufacture sufficient quantities of penicillin would take another fourteen years. The scientific method was indispensable in that quest.
But none of it would have happened without the anecdotal evidence of the inhibition of bacterial growth that Fleming noticed in his lab upon returning from vacation. The inhibition of staphylococci growth that Fleming saw in his lab had not yet been proven by the application of the scientific method, nor had the causal agent been established, nor had the phenomenon even been replicated. It was nothing more than anecdotal evidence, and minimal anecdotal evidence at that. Yet, untold millions of lives were ultimately saved by recognizing and acting upon that anecdotal evidence.
A healthy respect for the potential of anecdotal evidence is therefore in order, and you might even say that one of the arts of science is to seek out and recognize anecdotal evidence that has the whiff of significance.
Sam Shepherd is a scientist who claims to have cured himself of a rare, slow-growing blood cancer, polycythemia vera. He claims to be the only known cure, and a Google search for “Has anyone been cured of polycythemia vera?” turns up only “No, there is no known cure for polycythemia vera.” The story, therefore, of how a scientist devised a treatment, based on red algae, merits serious consideration. Shepherd’s theory is that the active agent that saved him is an anti-oxidant, astaxanthin, naturally present in red algae.
So, by all means, line up all the caveats about anecdotal evidence, and sure, keep in mind that Mr. Shepherd has a commercial interest in the formula he developed that he calls ValAsta, but as I listen to Mr. Shepherd in my interview with him, what I hear is a man dedicated to science and hoping to help others. (I have no financial interest in ValAsta.) The whiff I’m picking up is the whiff of significance, not the smell of money. Listen to Mr. Shepherd and make your own judgment.
There are some cancers for which conventional treatments have a low success rate: among them, pancreatic cancer, stage 3 or 4 lung cancer, glioblastomas, multiple myeloma, polycythemia vera. Would it not be reasonable for a person with a dire diagnosis like that to consider the treatment option of an anti-oxidant-based formula for which there seems to be worthy anecdotal evidence? If a patient is taking conventional chemotherapy drugs, such as doxorubicin, which works by causing free radical damage to the DNA of cancer cells, it’s possible that an antioxidant formula might interfere with that mechanism of action, so certainly this must be discussed with your doctor. But if I had a diagnosis for which there is no chemotherapy with a track record of success, I would strongly consider a treatment that offers hope and appears to be without risk.
The usual caveat applies: If you are in such a position, consult with your doctor. And I’ll add one more caveat: if your doctor dismisses any and all anecdotal evidence as a guiding principle, you might want to keep that in perspective, and ask your doctor if he or she sees any serious risk or downside to this antioxidant formula.
There could even be an opportunity here, not only to improve your own health, but to make a contribution to science.
Comments