Ethan Watters of New York Times recently published a fascinating article, The Americanization of Mental Illness, in the New York Times that certainly raises some questions about the currently accepted theory that mental illness is caused by chemical imbalances and, therefore, can be "cured" by drugs. Instead, he suggests that our cultural bias towards introspection and our fierce bent towards individual independence may actually be contributing to the mental suffering of our population--and being exported to the world! An expert opinion by AITSE-affiliated psychiatrist, Mario Ghiozzi, on this matter is coming soon. Watch for the release of our website!

This journal (Elsevier) is taking us a step in the right direction. It does not pre-judge the truth of a paper, but allows well-written and coherently-argued articles to be published. This fosters an environment that is conducive to the pursuit of scientific discovery where consensus science can no longer silence all those who would question the prevailing dogma. AITSE applauds Elsevier!

This drawing shows some actions of the T-helper cell (the Generals in the body's army) in directing our body's immune response. On the left is shown a body cell being attacked by a parasite like a tapeworm (A), a bacterium like Strep (B) or a virus like a cold (C). Since the three attackers are very different, "General T. Cell" needs to tailor his army's response. In the case of the comparatively HUGE parasite (line A), he tells the infantry (granulocytes) to kill the parasite by releasing chemical or biological weapons. In the case of the bacterium (line B), the T cells tell the B cells to make antibodies that stick to the bacterium making it tasty to the cannibal regiment (phagocytes). Finally, since viruses are tiny and live inside of cells hijacking their machinery to make more viruses, the poor cell cannot be saved. So, in line C General T Cell directs that the hijacked cell should be blown up by special forces so no more virus can be made.

Science is a very fragile construct. Basically, there are two strange attractors that will neutralize science: ideology and pragmatics. Ideology says that the theory is the most important thing, so when the data don't match the theory, you change the data. Global warming has become ideology, as has Darwinian evolution, just as assuredly the Russians made their Marxist Lysenko biology into an ideology. As Karl Popper said of Freudian psychoanalysis, a theory is no longer science if it can't be disproven. It has become ideology. When we sacrifice our data to ideology (as was done by scores of climate scientists), our science dies. The opposite side of the problem is pragmatism. Everything comes down to a recipe. This is much like the story of the Polynesian king whose hut burned down around his pig, and discovered roast pig, so every year the natives hold a festival that involves burning down a hut. Recipes without theory cannot progress, nor can theories without data, but the two must be held in a delicate balance. When we sacrifice our theories to pragmatism, we end up with "just-so" stories, with contradictions and lacunae incapable of resolution, a mess of contradictory, independent "facts" that we paper over with non-theories such as naturalistic neo-Darwinian evolution, unable to make progress, to make predictions, or even make sense of what we already know. The science may not die, but it languishes in the doldrums. Integrity in science is therefore essential to progress, to success, to vitality, to our children. If we want to leave a legacy of any value for children, we must not chase after dollars or fame or recognition, but after the twin virtues of truth and righteousness.