Sign up for news and updates!
|
|
Swift
|
|
Written by Tim Farley
|
|
This week I have a tale of two scientists, one you’ve probably heard of and one you probably haven’t.
On November 16, 1961, the government of Greece granted a patent to a small town medical doctor named John Lykoudis. It was for a combination of antibiotics that he claimed would cure peptic ulcers. He had clinical evidence from his own practice to back this up. The scientific consensus on this disease was that it was caused by excess stomach acid, and the recommended cure was antacids. Dr. Lykoudis’ cure, despite the patent, was refused a license by the Greek medical authorities and his papers on the topic rejected by many medical journals.
On November 18, 1970 the galley proofs of a new book by Linus Pauling were leaked to the press. In the book, he claimed there was evidence that megadoses of Vitamin C could be effective against the common cold and perhaps other illnesses. Pauling had impressive credentials including two Nobel Prizes. But the claims in his book ran counter to everything we knew at the time about recommended doses of vitamins. Pauling was roundly criticized by the medical establishment for stepping outside his expertise.
Both Lykoudis and Pauling were pushing ideas that ran counter to medical science. Both persisted in pushing their ideas until their deaths. Both were lambasted as cranks.
But the difference between the two is: Lykoudis, the obscure Greek physician, was right. In the 1980s a bacteria (H. Pylori) was found to be the cause of most peptic ulcers. The two scientists who eventually proved this were awarded a Nobel Prize in 2005 for their work.
Keep this in mind in your skeptical travels: every once in a while the obscure scientist tilting at windmills actually turns out to be correct. The key is following the data, not just the reputation.
You can get a daily dose of the history of skepticism with JREF’s free Today in Skeptic History app for iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad or by subscribing on Twitter or on Facebook.
(This essay originally appeared in a slightly different form on Skepticality episode #143)
Tim Farley is a JREF Research Fellow in electronic media.
Trackback(0)
 |
|
The problem with Lykoudis is that his behavior was indistinguishable from the myriad quacks and charlatans that existed then and exist today. That in hind sight one turned out to be on the right track is not all that surprising, and their contemporaries should not be faulted for their inability to predict the future.
The question is – what did Lykoudis do to convince the scientific community of his claims. Did he perform carefully controlled double-blind placebo-controlled trials? Did he attempt to enlist the help of a microbiologist to try to isolate the organism? Or did he just expect people to take his word for it?
What did he do to deserve being taken seriously? Being right in the hindsight of history is not enough.