"Why Mark 'the Toad' totally bungled his post is totally beyond me?

Oh yeah!  Mark 'the Toad' is a science geek." Bungle what?  I took no
position on the idea being tested about the role of free radicals in
disease control, I thought this an interesting idea.  There has been a
spate of such postings on another health related ng, these two are but
examples of how science works.  An idea gets going and research is done to
see how well it suscribes to reality.  Then others look at the nature of
the original idea and again test reality as to how it might be understood
in some better way.  In this back and forth manner science tries to wring
out the shape of the reality of the question.  Do I rely on science as the
best way by which to ask and answer questions about the physical reality?  
You bet ya, if there is another way which has a better track record,
please do let us know.  Interperting chincken entrails, bumps on the head,
leaves in the tea cup, numbers and stars, etc. have all been tried and all
lack miserably in the record department.  When it comes to health, sign me
up for science everytime, science is not a four letter word.  More
recently some want to substitute the "I'm ok you are ok and we all are ok
and we tell each other in our choir so it must be true", a new warm cozy
approach to confirming what ever nut theory comes down the pike.  It seems
to look like science but fails because it doesn't do the hard work of the
process mentioned above but relies on how popular among the "ok" choir it
is;ie. it is called scientism.