Science vs Statistics

The definition of the 'Scientific Method' requires the testing of a hypothesis.  Since very few variables in the real world can be controlled, results on human beings can NOT be tested.  How can we test if Freddy Fisherman, who is loaded up with methylmercury, will get ill from a vaccine containing an aluminum adjuvant?  What about 4 year old Timmy who puts his fingers in his mouth after playing in the garage where paints containing cadmium, cobalt and lead are stored, and there are two broken CFL light bulbs?  Can we scientifically test results for these variables?

Let’s substitute the word statistic (numerical data) for the incorrect use of the word science in the following testimonials on the ADA website.

The Alzheimer’s Association states:
"According to the best available SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE there is no relationship between silver dental fillings and Alzheimer's…”

Says who?  Are they telling us NO statistical evidence supports a relationship between mercury dental fillings and Alzheimer’s?  That would be a lie.

The National Multiple Sclerosis Society says:
"There is no SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE to connect the development of MS with mercury-based dental fillings.

Who collected the statistical data?  Did they include people who’s MS symptoms improved after having mercury fillings removed, or do they consider them statistical anomalies?

Lupus Foundation of America states:
"At the present time, we do not have any SCIENTIFIC DATA that indicates that dental fillings may act as a trigger of lupus.”

There is NO ‘scientific’ data?  They must mean statistical.  Where is the statistical data?  It shouldn’t be too much work for the Lupus foundation to ask people to say “Ahh” so their fillings can be counted when diagnosed for Lupus.  Perhaps they don’t want to know the statistics, that’s why they don’t have any.

If we substitute the word statistic for the word science in any bogus statement, we can tear their 'logic' apart.  Where did they get the numbers?  Who counted the statistics?  How did they count them?  Did they exclude injuries of people whom they turned into statistics?

The objectives of the ADA ‘testimony of others’ webpage and its writers is to put off people that might question their integrity by using he word science incorrectly. "You don't understand the SCIENCE," they say.  I say oh yes we do, "We understand the STATISTICS."

These charlatans are like squids that dirty up the water, making the writing unintelligible, in order to hide their profit-driven nefarious purpose.

Don’t let them do it.  Call the following organizations out on their misuse of the word science!

http://www.ada.org/en/press-room/press-kits/dental-fillings-press-kit/dental-amalgam-what-others-say
http://www.alz.org/alzheimers_disease_myths_about_alzheimers.asp
http://www.nationalmssociety.org/NationalMSSociety/media/MSNationalFiles/Brochures/Brochure-Clear-Thinking-About-Alternative-Therapies.pdf
http://www.lupus.org/answers/entry/are-dental-fillings-related-to-lupus