What's new
  • Please note members who been with us for more than 10 years have been upgraded to "Veteran" status and will receive exclusive benefits. If you wish to find out more about this or support IcMag and get same benefits, check this thread here.
  • Important notice: ICMag's T.O.U. has been updated. Please review it here. For your convenience, it is also available in the main forum menu, under 'Quick Links"!

Anecdotal Evidence

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
A recent posted link by Beta in the clone of a clone thread has led me to ramble here a bit about the scientific journal/corporate based community's view of anecdotal evidence.

The link led to a discussion of the potential vaccination causation of the onset of autism and I presume special diets to assuage the effects/symptoms of autism. To first discuss the merits of the vaccination issue, I'll point out that I have done a fair amount of reading on the subject and have worked hands on with several individuals diagnosed with autism during my tenure as a behaviourist.
It is unfortunate that, when someone, either in the media or in the public relations department of a science organization or corporation funding research, undertakes to belittle the evidence garnered on the side presenting evidence of vaccination causation of onset of autism, they choose the most emotionally invested parent and usually not the sharpest pencil.

The real hypothesis behind the potential vaccination causation of the onset of autism finds its base in research which indicates that if an infant has a compromised immune system at the time of receiving a vaccine, in particular a multiple antigen vaccination, there can be an insult (or damaging) of the immune system. The hypothesis and research states that if an infant may already have a flu, virus, poorly developed immune system or cold and on top of this receives an onslot of antigens, that this causes a structural change in the gut blood/brain barrier allowing the flow, of molecular structures normally blocked, into neuronal clefts causing brain dysfunction and possibly hallucinations. This hypothesis was researched by several serious scientists, one at Johnson & Johnson (as I recall) and at more than one university (I'd have to look it up). For those who do not know, the immune system is primarily contained in the gut. Those who have food intolerances or celiac disease will easily attest to the potential of brain dysfunction caused by the consumption of certain food molecules.

As it turns out one of the anti-vaccine proponents also mentioned the use of mercury in vaccines as an issue in the potential causation of onset of autism. Because this was an easy thing to jump on for research, that is what the pharmacy corporate funded scientists did and easily disproved this, posting in journals everywhere while at the same time effectively covering their ears and going lalalalala at the actual scientifically logical hypothesis. Then came the belittling, besmirching campaign to brand the research in the anti-vaccine camp as belonging to a bunch of hyped up hysterical, easily led parents. This is not much different than the campaign run by the medical association at one time in resistance to hand washing prior to touching or operating on a patient.

Now to consider briefly the logic of the specialized diets employed to effect more focused attention ability in those diagnosed with autism we need to learn that this is based on research involving feces and urine samples of those with autism. It was learned that a predominance of certain species of fungi and psychoactive molecular structures was fairly consistently high in affected and tested individuals. The diet which was structured was meant to reduce/eliminate these. Also incorporated were anti-fungal medications like Nystatin. Parents and researchers reported happier more ‘in control’ patients/children. I have witnessed, anecdotally, the temporary positive effects of a diet eliminating all dairy, processed ingredients and gluten on a profoundly autistic boy in my care for 2 weeks. Can I say for sure it was only the diet? No. Consider if there was a food molecular structure which could pass your blood/brain barrier and this molecular structure had a binding site in your brain where it could have effects similar to LSD. Consider the potential for permanent damage as this is continually fed to you.

The ‘anti-vaccine group’ to my knowledge has only asked for vaccines to be given one at a time or in lesser ‘cocktails’ and for real research into the hypotheses presented. It is apparently too expensive to reduce the cocktails and cheaper to publicly denigrate than to research.

Throughout the history of science many logical hypotheses and anecdotal observations have gone on to become theories or even so called laws of science. Ask Einstein or Hawking or Planck.

Much of the stuff I have observed and presented is considered anecdotal yet I consider it conclusive.

Some of the accepted 'facts' which I have dispelled anecdotally;

1/ black strap molasses is a bacterial food and does not feed fungi.

I fed vermicompost only molasses using water and vermicompost as a control > I video taped through a microscope the enormous fungal hyphae complexes which grew.

2/ fine bubbles in a compost tea brewer break up fungal hyphae

I recorded video through a microscope of fungal hyphae growing in a compost tea aerated with stones producing copious small bubbles.

3/ Alaska humus is actually humus and is not comprised of sphagnum peat according to seller/testing lab Earthfort/SFI [reported: no presence of Sphagnum]

I recorded video and photos through a microscope of samples of one brand of 'Alaska humus' clearly showing fully intact Sphagnum peat leaves and other plant cells. In the strict definition of humus, no intact leaves nor plant cells should be visible.

4/ Sphagnum peat moss is devoid of microbial life and is an anti-bacterial

I created slurries with Sphagnum peat moss as per usual with food stock and I recorded video through a microscope of emergent bacteria/archaea, protozoa and fungal hyphae

5/ ACT microbes, especially fungal hyphae do not survive passage through impeller type pumps

I recorded video through a microscope of ACT microbes, including hyphae passing safely through 800 micron mesh, impeller pump, waterline, sprinkler mesh and shrubhead sprinkler.

6/ Fungal hyphae takes three days to grow, especially in ACT

I recorded video through a microscope of massive fungal hyphae complexes grown in 18 hours in my compost tea brewer.

There are a number of hypotheses I have developed in the course of my horticultural and scientific exploration. Some of these have yet to gain theory status, like the continuos cycling of nutrients in living soil with minimal inputs and no disturbance of soil; based on hierarchical layers of microbes and organic matter degradation [this involves the casting aside of the whole differentiated feed the plant: vegetation Vs fruiting/flower period; N&P scenario] but others have employed the hypothesis before and following my path with good results. This possibly speaks well of anecdotal evidence/information.

In consideration of the clone of a clone thread, I have offered pretty much only anecdotal observations. There have been arguments presented about whether the changes are genetic or epigenetic but that is not the stated question from my perspective. It is whether there is degradation when clones are made of clones of clones (meaning cuttings). If there is such degradation, what does it matter whether the cause is genetic or epigenetic. I have anecdotally witnessed it first hand as has Doc Leaf. I’ve also heard this reported by other ‘bulk’ growers. I have conceded that I believe it possible to preserve the integrity of a plant’s vigor through successive ‘perpetual’ cuttings but this is not something I succeeded at.

In this and in many cases I conjecture (ha ha Spurr) that anecdotal evidence has great value.
 
Last edited:
M

Mountain

I have conceded that I believe it possible to preserve the integrity of a plant’s vigor through successive ‘perpetual’ cuttings but this is not something I succeeded at.

In this and in many cases I conjecture (ha ha Spurr) that anecdotal evidence has great value.
Anecdotal info is good for those that can think for themselves taking into consideration the source, experience with the subject matter and background in related subjects/areas where they can use what appears to be 'unrelated' information and apply to the situation in question.

As for the cutting thing...I can only provide anecdotal info. I ran the same cut for about 5 years making about 200 fresh cuts per cycle. My ex has run the same cut under the same circumstances for a few years more. Since anecdotal info only probably useless in some eyes.
 

inquest

Member
Anecdotal evidence, Imho, is where the layman and scientist diverge. One saying "This seems to work/not work." the other "Why does this seem to work/not work." If there were any evidence for the value of anecdotal evidence, at the very least it would be the prodding of great minds into motion. Not to mention that before there was modern science, anecdotal evidence was evidence.

Just playin devils advocate! ;)

Microbeman & Mountain, The cuts that you've had your respective experiences with, were they primarily of arid/humid, low/high Latitude regions? I would think that a background from tropical areas would favor longevity in cuts, and the converse to be true.
 

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Anecdotal evidence, Imho, is where the layman and scientist diverge. One saying "This seems to work/not work." the other "Why does this seem to work/not work." If there were any evidence for the value of anecdotal evidence, at the very least it would be the prodding of great minds into motion. Not to mention that before there was modern science, anecdotal evidence was evidence.

Just playin devils advocate! ;)

It would be nice were that true, however many (so-called) scientific studies are conducted to show only what does happen and not why. Cases in point; 1/ The above discussed vaccination argument which was only presented as 'does not'
2/ Studies showing that e-coli will/'does' grow in aerated compost tea (ACT). Shamefully the ACT was inoculated with e-coli in every single study and there was no protozoa count [the number one controlling factor for e'coli (IMO)]

Unfortunately the list of selfish based studies can go on and on in this age of corporate sponsored research.
 

inquest

Member
I do believe that the true problem here is the corporate sponsored research. I'd be willing to bet that in every one of those labs there are workers thinking "I wonder - how, why, where, ...." just to have that creativity stiffled by "the aim of the study" as put forth by the powers that be..... :/ I cant tell you how many times I've had ideas squashed at work purely because they "step on toes." While at the same time demonstrating increased productivity and cost limiting in my own dept. The real pioneers step aside these limitations to become the Lonnie Johnsons and Michael Czysz's of the world. But, that list is woefully short.... It'd be nice to be THAT guy, but folks got bills to pay.

P.s. Thanks for the rep. :)
 

Cannabologist

Active member
Veteran
- Anecdotal evidence/observations can be a good springboard that prompt further scrutiny under a scientific microscope, but they do come under strong limitations, and must be looked at critically. Conclusions should not be drawn on the basis of anecdotal observations alone.
If there is such degradation, what does it matter whether the cause is genetic or epigenetic.
- Because the mechanism is everything, and whether it is affecting genetic or epigenetic systems is a large difference, as problems with both can be reversed, but they require different techniques (if that even is the problem in the first place).

- If degradation is noticed, the observation needs to be documented and the cause must be found, we must pinpoint the source(s) so that we know what the cause is and what it is doing so we know for sure. Just speculating that “oh, well, they probably just age”, or “oh, well, gene expression must just change”, I want to know whether it does actually or not, and if so, why and how. This is the difference between anecdotal observations and real science.
I have anecdotally witnessed it first hand as has Doc Leaf
- But did what you witness come as the result of some sort of chromosomal degradation over time, caused simply by the fact you made many cuttings of cuttings of cuttings? Was it an epigenetic change? Or is there an entirely different factor playing out, a problem with environment, or problem unseen with the plant to begin with?

- I am not convinced on the basis of anecdotal evidence alone and feel there are other mechanisms that better explain what was observed.

I have conceded that I believe it possible to preserve the integrity of a plant’s vigor through successive ‘perpetual’ cuttings but this is not something I succeeded at.
- I wish I could read. But I am an illiterate. I blame it on weed. Damn you mary jane!
 
Last edited:

Microbeman

The Logical Gardener
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Canna; That you seek these answers is admirable
but that is not the stated question from my perspective. It is whether there is degradation when clones are made of clones of clones (meaning cuttings). Originally posted by Microbeman
What I intended by that statement was that I was addressing the original post.
I am not intending to move that discussion over here. To answer one question briefly, you may find by digging that I am one of the originators and advocates of large growing containers and living soil (no mix) indoors.
 

Latest posts

Latest posts

Top