Eczema

[Andrew MacLean]

Maybe you make my point for me, Louise.

Would they call what they do 'science'? If they do, they may be no different to the misguided Greek Acamadicians who executed Aristarchos for daring to venture that the Earth rotated on its axis and was translated around the sun in orbital motion.

People who control a community's received wisdom are seldom willing to share their power with those whom they consider 'outsiders'.

In the ancient world, "Pagan" was the opposite of "Citizen". In the modern world, it may be hoped, we are more willing to find in each other a repository of wisdom from which we can all benefit.

I do think that in Psychiatry the last great divide may be between "Doctor" and "Patient". but then I betray myself as a life long admirer of R D Laing.

Andrew

[Louise Pembroke]

It's ok to be a Laingian! There is that divide yes, but the greatest shift has to be societal, cultural and political. The 'social psychiatrists' don't view their 'evidence base' as scientific, but those wedded [or should I say welded] to the biological model would very much view their theories and practice as hard science. This is why some of us keep asking in a Paxman like manner 'show us the test results!', and of course they don't have any!
Sorry folks, bit off subject.

[Andrew MacLean]

Not entirely off subject. The string did take a bit of a meander, but the point at which we departed was where we were talking about the discoveries we tend to make of ways in which to treat either KC or its correlates (e.g. eczema).

Maybe it is precisely because the forum allows folk to think broadly, even take lateral jumps, that it is such a valuable place for us all as we try to piece together ways of living with our eye problems and relate them to the rest of our experience.

Jay recognized that after he had tried a particular regime of treatment with his infant, the eczema cleared up. Now that is an observation, but on observations like his, science is built.

A later stage is for a researcher to formulate a hypothesis: this or that treatment will produce a cure, or at least cause a regression, for that or this condition.

Next again is for the hypothesis to be tested. Usually tests are conducted alongside placebo tests to see if the 'experimental' group shows a higher recovery rate than the 'control' group.

If the experimental group out-performs the control, then the researchers do a little dance around their lab and punch the air. If not, then science has still acquired new knowledge.

it is right that people with expert knowledge like yours, Louise, should bring the set of metaphors with which they are most familiar and apply them to the understanding of KC.

If I were a junior house physician in Ophthalmology, looking for a research project to convert my MB ChB into a PhD, I'd watch the strings in this forum and others like it.


Andrew

[GarethB]

Speak to a physisist and they will say theres is a true science and the chemist will agree. Physisits look down on chemists for trying to be scientists. Both look down on biology saying it is an art not a true science.

Biologists know that when it comes to survival of the fitists, they will have the last laugh as they have learnt survival from nature.

If you are like me and beleive in a creator, I beleive the creator deliberatly made things confusing to observe how well we adapt and evolve.

Definitly a place for religion and science to ce-exist and learn from each other.

[Andrew MacLean]

"Amen" .. No irony intended in this (proper) use of the word.

Things get a little complicated when the old divisions between branches of Natural Philosophy break down and people start calling themselves things like "bio-Physicists"

I am ust waiting to see a paper on KC that looks at the problem with our corneas at the molecular level. I reckon that the C3R development begins to branch into an altogether new field of science.

Maybe the confusion of the languages of people continues into the confusion of the scientific metaphors we apply as we try to explain the way things are and how they may have got this way!

these explanations will have a strong influence in any efforts we may make in trying to put them right again!

Andrew

[Louise Pembroke]

I believe in hope, chocolate cake, and the Prime Directive
[sorry, I am obliged as Director of Sci-fi and Silliness to be silly every few postings just to ensure members don't become too sensible]

[jayuk]

Andrew


I agree...we are going into areas which we havent so far in KC...and collagen and corneal structure is just the start. Analysis of Tears and Tear content is also been researched in KC corneas...and from this we can now explore potential reasons of why the two differ and what the reason of the by-product' existence is!....from there its endless!!

As I said in a post before....whilst its not nice to have KC and you wouldnt wish it on anyone, Id rather be diagnosed with KC NOW than when I did 11 years ago!!..

[Andrew MacLean]

Boldly to go
to go boldly
to boldly go (sic)

Yup, Jay These are exciting times. I said elsewhere that I have nothing but admiration for the way in which gareth and you have entered into the C3R experiment.

Every good wish.

Andrew

[Louise Pembroke]

Let us know about the paper Andrew, as you say this is a new area and who knows maybe in yeas to come noone with KC will need to have grafts

[Sweet]

Hehe i would boldly add to that statement on no longer needing a graft that hopefully in years to come no-one will need it because there would be no KC!!!

Now that's a dam good thought!

Well looking for hope at the AGM with genetic study, wishful thinking!!!

Sweet X x X