On May 7.5.14, 10, Channel XNUMX published an article on the occasion of Prof. Bruce Lipton's visit to Israel. His lecture and the article about him were strewn with many inaccuracies and presented him as a leading researcher promoting an innovative scientific concept. In this review I will try to explain the inaccuracies that appeared in the article and some of the serious errors in Prof. Lipton's perception.
On May 7.5.14, 10, it was published on Channel XNUMX story On the occasion of Prof. Bruce Lipton's visit to Israel. His lecture and the article about him were strewn with many inaccuracies and presented him as a leading researcher promoting an innovative scientific concept. In this review I will try to explain the inaccuracies that appeared in the article and some of the serious errors in Prof. Lipton's perception.
A short investigation on Prof. Lipton suggests that he Has not published any scientific research since 1992, that is, for 22 years. From this it follows not only that he is not one of the most important biologists in the world - a title that even Nobel laureates do not dare to boast - but that he is actually quite unknown academically. In these two decades many theories rose and fell, certain research methods became irrelevant and new and more accurate methods emerged and entered the scientific consensus. 22 years is an eternity in academic terms, and it is strange that despite his so-called "dizzying success", Prof. Lipton has not published a single article in a scientific journal since 1992.
At the beginning of the article Prof. Lipton claimed that the brain affects the chemical environment of the cellular fluid, and he is right - it is called Hormonal communication. The brain controls the secretion of hormones (communication molecules) that, in order to fulfill their role, cause changes in the cells. Adrenaline, for example, causes, among other things, certain muscle cells to contract. There is nothing new or revolutionary about it, just basic high school biology.
epigenetics
Also on the subjectepigenetics The article contains substantial errors. Contrary to Prof. Lipton's claim, epigenetics (a field that deals with the influence of the environment on genetic information) does not state that genes are not responsible for our health, but rather adds another dimension of complexity. The genes are the body's instruction book and the epigenetic processes are a kind of corrections in the book dictated by the environment, among other things. It is more accurate to say that our health is affected by the combination of genetics and environment, and here too the influence of our power of thought and belief is extremely limited.
The placebo effect
With regard toThe placebo effect. In the scientific literature, several cases are known in which it was discovered that surgeries were not clinically effective, and one of them is indeed Knee surgery The one mentioned in the article - an operation that was very popular in the past, but its success was limited and it was not clear why it only succeeds in about 60-50 percent of the cases. After testing three groups - a normal surgery group, and two different placebo groups, it became clear that it has no clinical effect beyond the placebo effect. Similar stories are known from the past, such as placebo surgery forThoracic artery ligation And more, but they do not justify the generalizations Prof. Lipton uses.
Later in the article, a test is mentioned in which a moisturizer was used as a placebo treatment for a burn, and the patient did experience pain relief. What is not mentioned - and this fact is backed by many studies, is that the placebo effect is only symptomatic. It affects our senses, and to a limited extent also the immune system, but by no means the cause of the problem.
Quite a few studies that compared treatments with placebo clearly showed that although the patient felt better, the fundamental problem from which he suffered was not solved. One example of this is A study conducted on asthma patients in which they compared a normal inhaler with a dummy inhaler. Patients who were treated with a dummy inhaler felt an improvement, but only in those who used the real inhaler was a significant improvement in lung functions found.
The placebo effect is the engine behind most alternative treatments and here too there is plenty of research. The claim that the placebo effect, or "the power of thought", can cure diseases, is misleading. The deception may cost one's life, as was the case with the late CEO of Apple - Steve Jobs. There is currently a well-controlled mechanism for drug approval, within the framework of which each drug must prove that it is more effective than the placebo group or another proven treatment, otherwise it will not receive the approval of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). BThe process of testing a new drug The placebo effect is definitely taken into account and additional reviews are made.
Prof. Lipton claims that the genes do not control anything - nothing could be further from the truth. The genes are the body's operating manual, and the environment can make slight changes to it, but the body will still use it to function. The genes are the code for all the machines that make up the body, and it is clear that if there is any failure in one of these machines, it will affect the body's function. In his lecture, Prof. Lipton attacks this mechanism, which underlies many well-characterized biological processes, but does not present convincing evidence for it.
New Age "Science".
In the lecture itself there are even more far-reaching arguments that were not presented in the article. Prof. Lipton opens his words with a kind of introduction to biology that is strewn with inaccuracies, distortions and in some cases gross errors at the level of a basic misunderstanding of the mechanisms underlying biology, such as the theory of evolution or the biology of the cell. He mentions several studies, makes far-fetched connections between them and New Age hypotheses and brings a host of unfounded arguments and recommendations.
Some examples of this are his claims that organic food is better because it is "the food of the cells", that a terminal cancer patient can be cured by the power of faith, and that our faith affects the physical state of the cells. Prof. Lipton adds and says that genes can be controlled by the power of thought - a beautiful dream but without scientific basis.
He backs up his assumptions with a number of unrelated examples. One example of this is his statement that cells can differentiate into different types depending on the environment - this is indeed true, but not because of the state of the body but under the influence of a well-defined developmental mechanism resulting from genetic information.
He also uses false analogies, such as the claim that the membrane (the cell membrane) is the "brain" of the cell. To explain the ear, if I take the genetic material of one cell and plant it in another cell with a different membrane, after a while the cell will begin to behave as dictated by the genetic material I planted in it. There are indeed cells that can live without a hereditary load (depending of course on the definition of what "living" means), but there is no cell that can reproduce without DNA.
Another example of the importance of the hereditary material is one of the great hopes for finding a cure for cancer based on personalized medicine. As part of these treatments, the changes in the hereditary material of tumors are analyzed and treatments are adjusted accordingly. There are many more examples that clarify the importance of genes, and it is too short to describe them.
In light of this, it is possible that Prof. Lipton's studies from over two decades ago made a modest contribution to science, but they are light years away from demonstrating the processes he claims to describe. His arguments are not scientifically based, and his definition as one of the world's leading biologists mocks the work of scientists working in their laboratories on groundbreaking research.
The article is part of the "There is room for doubt" section that deals with failures in the media's engagement with scientific issues. It should not be seen as any expression of a position regarding the subject the original video deals with, but only about his way of engaging in science.
11 תגובות
Hi Ariel,
Thanks for the points you added.
I certainly understand them, yet it is important for me to clarify that these points are not scientific principles and are not related to real science. (assuming, of course, that you define science as the study of truth)
Let's start with the first point:
I don't know who invented the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof". I understand the logic behind it and why it may be used, but this is not a scientific principle, and may even be a contradiction to the principles of science.
First let's be a little more precise. It is important to understand that in science there is no such thing as "proof". Proof is a subjective thing. For example: you did an experiment in which you managed to exterminate ants with cocoa powder and you claim "cocoa powder kills ants".
For you it is proof. For another person this is not proof because he tried to reproduce the experiment many times and failed. For a second person it is proof, because he simply believes you because you have a degree in biology.
A third person accepts your finding but claims that it does not necessarily prove your claim, and the fourth person claims that your experiment is full of failures, that the cocoa companies paid you, and that you are just a liar.
Scientific research does not provide evidence. Science provides evidence, support, corroboration. Nothing can be proven 100%.
These supports constitute proof for those who believe them, do not constitute proof for those who do not believe them and constitute proof with a limited guarantee for those who believe them with a limited guarantee.
But let's assume that there is a terminological confusion here and that your intention when you wrote "proof" was to support it.
The scientific principle is: "Every idea about the truth (claim, theory, conclusion), needs support, in order to increase the level of certainty of the belief in its truth"
Therefore, any claim - and it doesn't matter if it is ordinary or unusual - in order to be believed to be true, needs strong arguments.
It doesn't matter if I discovered a bacterium that manages to exist without oxygen (normal claim), or a bacterium that can talk (extraordinary claim).
In both cases I must provide sufficient support so that the claim can be believed.
There may be those who will believe the first discovery without even asking questions because it is "logical" and will not believe the second discovery because it is "illogical", but this has nothing to do with science.
The principle "extraordinary claims require extraordinary support" is a rule of thumb invented in my opinion in order to overcome our difficulty in dealing with the fact that there is almost nothing about which we have absolute certainty,
But this "shortcut" costs us in moving away from the scientific approach.
The scientific principle is "any claim that requires sufficient support in order to be believed to be true".
Let's go back to Bruce Lipton for a moment. Watch the movie in the link I added in response to the miracles and decide for yourself, regarding which claims he makes there, he provided sufficient support, in your opinion, and regarding which he did not.
We have a very strong need for certainty. This need is one of the greatest dangers for the scientist and the seeker of truth. This is a danger because this need pushes us to determine whether something is true or false, when in most cases, our real certainty about the correctness of things is very low.
When I saw the attached video I did not "accept" or "reject" Bruce Lipton's claims completely. I listened to him with openness, I considered all the data and information he provided, for some of his claims I felt he provided enough support for me, for others a little less and for others too little..
Second point:
Note that Erez responded to the article and Lipton's lecture in Israel - which he claims he attended. I don't know what was in the lecture, but it is clear that an article of a few minutes that was created by some reporter and not by Lipton himself, will only present juicy arguments without the proofs. Even a lecture cannot necessarily contain all the support and research,
Because the audience's attention is limited in time. I did not see his lecture in Israel, but if you watch the lecture that I attached to the response to miracles, you will see that he actually provides very in-depth support for many of the claims he makes in it.
In my opinion, the attempt to analyze Lipton's claims based on the article is very superficial.
As mentioned, I did not hear Lepton's lecture in Israel, but even here I came across Erez's analysis of things that made me raise an eyebrow. For example, the paragraph: “He also uses false analogies…. To multiply without DNA", is evidence for me of a quick judgment, without an in-depth examination. In the video lecture I attached in the link to miracles, which is as mentioned from 2005, Lipton explains exactly what Erez explains and therefore he claims that the cell nucleus
More similar to the reproductive system than to the brain (in the aspect of a mechanism that controls the functions), and that if you remove the nucleus from the cell it will continue to function as usual (unlike what would happen if you removed the brain from a person). He parallels the cell membrane to the brain because the entire process of inputting the external information that reaches the cell and deciding what
to do with this input is already determined at the level of the cell membrane. Of course, Erez is also right in that the functions of the cell over time will be determined by the genetic material in the nucleus and therefore it can be compared to a control system (brain), but from here to deciding that Lipton's analogy is wrong there is a long way to go.
By the way, in my response to Erez I did not refer to the various claims he makes against Lipton's words, which even if some of them were biased in advance and quick to judge in my opinion, were still relevant in relation to Lipton's arguments. I treated Lipton's personality analysis as a non-scientific approach to analyzing the truth of his claims.
Third point:
If you really want to believe neither the religious scientist who found evidence of God's existence nor the atheist scientist who found evidence of God's existence.
Examine their claims matter-of-factly and based on your personal judgment decide how much you believe them.
This is the approach of science.
It is clear that if an atheist scientist finds evidence for the existence of God it will be easier to believe him than if he were religious, since it can be assumed (and this is not necessarily true) that he is less biased.
But what if as fate would have it, the person who discovered the strongest evidence to date of God's existence is religious?
If science were to reject his testimony based on his personal beliefs, he would lose one of the most important discoveries in history.
Therefore, in real science, examination of findings and claims must be objective. Any bias based on assumptions and prejudices diverts us from the path of science to the path of blind faith - and turns science into a new religion.
One of the first rules in scientific research is objectivity - that is, thought that is not biased by the need for the truth to be one way or another.
Yoshi let me introduce some points you "forgot" to add to your comment:
1) Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, that is, as soon as you claim that something contradicts mountains of research or that there is no extraordinary evidence (a thought can heal, the existence of a being that created the universe, etc..) you need to bring, in this case, more than one study not so relevant.
2) What Erez is complaining about is the distortion of scientific data and the pathetic attempt to tie this data to various concepts that are against conventional science in order to promote New Age science.
3) Why would hanging around in dubious/unscientific circles not be a reason to doubt someone's credibility? Who would you rather believe? To a religious scientist who "found" evidence for the existence of God? Or to an atheist scientist who found the same evidence? I am not talking about a situation where the same religious scientist has been claiming for years that he has found evidence for the existence of God and every time flaws or distortions of the evidence have been discovered.
miracles miracles…
A charlatan, a danger to the public, anything can happen. This is a subjective judgment and it is perfectly legitimate, but it has nothing to do with science.
The attempt to examine a certain claim by examining the way we perceive the person who claimed it, is not a scientific approach but a missionary approach (from the word mission = mission) and has no place in the world of science in my opinion.
The motivation that should drive science is the exploration of the truth as it is, and not the subjection of the truth to what we would like it to be.
And yes you are right, Erez was much gentler with Lipton than I was with Erez, because Erez himself was not the target of my reaction but the very phenomenon of judging a person as a tool for examining his claims. And as I mentioned in my response, Erez judged Lipton relatively mildly compared to other reviews I've come across.
And one last thing for you, really out of goodwill. You wrote yourself that you read a little about Lipton.
Some…. And you have already determined that he is a charlatan and a danger to the public..???
And what if he did come up with something that is true? Isn't it a shame you missed it by dismissing it so quickly?
Leave for a moment all Lepton's "advanced" claims that seem delusional to you and others.
Watch his "Biology of Perception" lecture from 2005, which only deals with scientific issues, and decide for yourself if he might understand a thing or two (or more).
Here is a link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnmaiWWZ3fc
miracles miracles…
A charlatan, a danger to the public, anything can happen. This is a subjective judgment and it is perfectly legitimate, but it has nothing to do with science.
The attempt to examine a certain claim by examining the way we perceive the person who claimed it, is not a scientific approach but a missionary approach (from the word mission = mission) and has no place in the world of science in my opinion.
The motivation that should drive science is the exploration of the truth as it is, and not the subjection of the truth to what we would like it to be.
And yes you are right, Erez was much gentler with Lipton than I was with Erez, because Erez himself was not the target of my reaction but the very phenomenon of judging a person as a tool for examining his claims. And as I mentioned in my response, Erez judged Lipton relatively mildly compared to other reviews I've come across.
And one last thing for you, really out of goodwill. You wrote yourself that you read a little about Lipton.
Some…. And you have already determined that he is a charlatan and a danger to the public..???
And what if he did come up with something that is true? Isn't it a shame you missed it by dismissing it so quickly?
Leave for a moment all Lepton's "advanced" claims that seem delusional to you and others.
Watch his "Biology of Perception" lecture from 2005, which only deals with scientific issues, and decide for yourself if he might understand a thing or two (or more).
Here is a link
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WnmaiWWZ3fc
Yoshi
I read a bit about Lipton. Erez was much gentler with him than you were gentle with Erez.
In my opinion, Lipton is just a charlatan. The links from his website are delusional, and the man is a danger to the public.
It is interesting why almost every time a certain scientist claims to have made a discovery that may undermine the beliefs held by the mainstream of the world of science (and even more so if the discovery supports things that have a connotation of spiritual concepts - since it is known that they are fictional inventions, all kinds of Buddhas and people are disconnected from reality and there are no Not even an iota of truth) The factual scientific criticism of him begins as follows:
"A short summary of Dr. Erez Gerti shows that he does not specialize in genetics at all but in immunology, his research generally dealt with the roles of ion channels in the immune system, and the effect of alcohol on temperature sensing. Therefore his views and ideas presented in this column are questionable.
On top of that, he is an active member among the members of the science fiction cult known for their wild imagination and excessive enthusiasm for pseudo-scientific ideas."
Dear Erez. First I apologize if I offended you. That was not my intention. Unfortunately, I see this too many times, and it bothers me, because labeling people has nothing to do with science or scientific proof.
It is probably clear that a short search on the Internet and labeling you under the titles of the degrees you did cannot really allow me to know who you are, what your knowledge and claims are based on.
Likewise, even if a scientist moves around in different circles, we call them NEW AGE, science fiction, Yahweh's Witnesses or the Pride Parade, this cannot diminish the credibility of his claims in the slightest, if we stick to the scientific approach that should test things objectively and not biased.
Why is it necessary to begin objective criticism by lowering the person's stature? (And I have to point out to the good that you were still gentle in relation to other reviews I come across)
Therefore, perhaps this part of the article could have been omitted - and if it bothered you that the author of the article presented him as one of the most important biologists in the world (he did not claim this about himself) - you can simply state this in a simple way and write: "Personally, it bothered me that the reporter crowned him as one of the biologists The most important in the world, because in my opinion..."
And so at least a clearer distinction can be made between subjective personal opinions and the scientific discussion which should be more objective.
Again sorry if I offended,
That is not my intention.
It's hard for me when the scientific discourse loses the principles that guide science.
New Age is all about mysticism and has no place in scientific research. What is worthy of research is how the New Age developed. This is the role of sociology and psychology. A lot of chicks can fall into this honey trap. Stay away from it like fire.
Herzl
Indeed - the man is full of nonsense...
I checked on Wikipedia, according to which the man received "enlightenment" in the 80's and since then he claims that the structure of the cell proves that there is a God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruce_Lipton
So where is he a professor? A serious institution or a cuckold? In his last article he was in the skin department of a respected institution. It is not clear in what role.
"Nowadays, a well-controlled mechanism for the approval of medicines" Wow, really Erez?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Food_and_Drug_Administration#Charges_of_FDA_bias