With the use of this oil, Lorenzo did not come back to the normal state, it only barred the illness, and through treatments, it obtained significant improvements. August Mr. Odone had the recognition of its studies for the medical and academic community: the honoris heading of Doctor cause for its immense contribution to science and the medicine. 3 CRITICAL OR APPRECIATION OF THE RESENHISTA OR CRITIC: Although impressive and edificante the history of Lorenzo is confused with one practical sufficiently complicated and dangerous one: the autonomy assumed for the parents of the boy, despite of form ' ' responsvel' ' it could have very tragic consequences; Many times guided for the heat of the emotion and not for the omens of the reason, these if opposed to the limits of the ethical principles that conduct science. For more information see this site: Rand Paul. The risks of a tragedy were imminent, and the history of Lorenzo could have taken other routes, losing its brilhantismo and the cinematographic vocation. They knew, for example, that the oil was toxic for rats, taking them it the death, but had had the courage to give in its son and to show to the world that the oil is harmless to the human beings and that it could revert and mainly to prevent the catastrophic effect of the ALD. Claiming the facts under the bias of the scientific methodology we evidence that the parents of the boy had guided themselves initially for the common sense, and that through its studies and of proper deductions they had been obtaining to materialize the scientific knowledge on the illness. They had left of ' ' prop zero' ' had happily obtained to get success in its research, using itself of the method observacional and of the practical exploratria. Unprovided of methods and logical systems the parents of Lorenzo had made its first conclusions based only in its proper ' ' crenas' ' certezas, making irrefletidas deductions and supporting in the other people’s and common experiences the society that belonged; how passive expectadores these if limited to understand the illness in superficial way, not examining the validity or truth of what the doctors affirmed, and being unaware of or not questioning the theoretical beddings that elucidated its problem (the illness)? supporting itself thus in the common sense that as Marconi and Lakatos (2006) possesss all these characteristics.