Listen carefully, medicos. It's the sound of your approaching irrelevance...He has a point. If physicians can't collectively and effectively assert, "this is science; that's quackery," then some other social authority --perhaps less informed-- will be called in to do that.
There are doctors who write books, join research networks, hold board certifications, who say:
- What if there's some link between autism and an inflammatory bowel condition?
- What if that bowel problem allows toxins to leak into the blood stream?
- What if there's a subset of autistics who can't excrete mercury or other heavy metals/toxins?
- What if those toxins or the body's reaction to the toxins cause brain damage?
- What if the damage results in autism symptoms specifically?
- What if the mercury build-up plus MMR vaccine plus leaky gut causes a chronic, vaccine-type measles infection of the brain and/or gut?
- What if chelation gets rid of the toxins?
- What if the body can fight off the virus once the toxins are gone?
- What if BigPharma is suppressing evidence in support of these what-ifs?
--except they leave off the "what if" bit.
So what to do with colleagues who elevate supposition and personal experience to the level of established fact?
Perhaps it's a kind of mental disorder, this "polymaybeosis" or "hyperwhatifitis." A strict diet limiting what-ifs to no more than ONE per topic under discussion might help.