Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......he worries that the field of
medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of
interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change-or even to
publicly admitting that there's a problem.
.......His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of
wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were
later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the
most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly
gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the
platinum-standard large randomized trials. The article spelled out his
belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing
career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the
peer-review process-in which journals ask researchers to help decide which
studies to publish-to suppress opposing views.
.......Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective
interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of
these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or
significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most
acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and
impact of the problem were undeniable.

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......

That's the cool thing about science: It's self correcting. I wonder how
he comes up with 90% figure.

he worries that the field of
medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of
interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change-or even to
publicly admitting that there's a problem.
......His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of
wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were
later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the
most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly
gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the
platinum-standard large randomized trials.

So 90% of the platinum-standard large randomized trials are right!

The article spelled out his
belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing
career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the
peer-review process-in which journals ask researchers to help decide which
studies to publish-to suppress opposing views.
......Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective
interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of
these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or
significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most
acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and
impact of the problem were undeniable.

What the article doesn't mention is that science is self-correcting. It
found out that the articles were wrong. What about con-med (conjecture
based-medicine or alternative medicine)? It is not self-correcting,
except for what brings in more income.

Jeff

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

"Bob Officer" [email protected] wrote in message
...


escaped my killfile, back you go!

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

"Bob Officer" [email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:40:16 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
dr_jeff wrote:

On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......

That's the cool thing about science: It's self correcting. I wonder how
he comes up with 90% figure.

he worries that the field of
medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of
interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change-or even to
publicly admitting that there's a problem.
......His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of
wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were
later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the
most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly
gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the
platinum-standard large randomized trials.

So 90% of the platinum-standard large randomized trials are right!

What are the known error bars for non-randomized studies?
What are the known error bars randomized small non-blinded studies?
What are the known error bars for large randomized double blinded
studies?

Exactly what his model shows, isn't it?

The article spelled out his
belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing
career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the
peer-review process-in which journals ask researchers to help decide which
studies to publish-to suppress opposing views.
......Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective
interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of
these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or
significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most
acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and
impact of the problem were undeniable.

What the article doesn't mention is that science is self-correcting. It
found out that the articles were wrong. What about con-med (conjecture
based-medicine or alternative medicine)? It is not self-correcting,
except for what brings in more income.

Even his study is part of the process. the corrections are made and
flawed studies are so marked.

IIRC a study with food suppliments in chickens was pretty much
shredded here because it was flawed, not double blinded, or masked.

The article also made a bad assumption.
"If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in
medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the
problem were undeniable."

Not all medical research is used in every day medicine. Most research
published ends up being retested, and then retested again.

None randomized studies go on and provide the basis or rational for
small randomized studies, which provide the basis or rational for
large randomized studies.

The best thing about science is the right t challenge research and
papers. just like what happened to Wakefield.

Science may not be prefect, but it is the best Tool/System we have.

Science isn't perfect yet it holds itself up as the standard and everything else is wrong.
When 90% of studies have flaws, where do they get off casting aspersions on alternative health?


--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found the exact amount of injustice and wrong doing which will be imposed on
them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed
by the endurance of those whom they oppress." - Frederick Douglas, 1857

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

On 10/19/10 8:18 PM, carole wrote:
"Bob Officer"[email protected] wrote in message ...

...

Science isn't perfect yet it holds itself up as the standard and everything else is wrong.

Really? That's not true.

When 90% of studies have flaws, where do they get off casting aspersions on alternative health?

Really? I am surprised that the number is so low. No study is perfect.

While the studies have flaws (that's why they are repeated and the
hypotheses tested in different ways), the difference between science and
conjecture-based medicine (aka con-med or alternative medicine) is that
there is good scientific evidence to back up science-based medicine.
There is no good evidence to back up con-med.

Another difference is that everything in medicine and science can be
proven wrong if a better explanation comes along. That's not try in any
other field.

Jeff

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

On 10/19/10 8:41 PM, jigo wrote:
dr_jeff wrote:
On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/


[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts
on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical
researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they
advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery
for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often
flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......

That's the cool thing about science: It's self correcting. I wonder
how he comes up with 90% figure.


Eventually self-correcting; that doesn't help those patients who got
lobotomized in the 20th century, for example.
...

All we can do is the best we can. And science is the best way to gain
knowledge about health and the body.

What the article doesn't mention is that science is self-correcting.
It found out that the articles were wrong. What about con-med
(conjecture based-medicine or alternative medicine)? It is not
self-correcting, except for what brings in more income.

Again, *eventually* self-correcting. That may take many years.

Give us a better alternative.

Jeff

Jeff

On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

...

he worries that the field of
medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with
conflicts of
interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change-or even to
publicly admitting that there's a problem.

Conflict of interest is the main problem, especially in semi-scientific
fields like psychiatry. If their treatments aren't working, why go to a
psych ward? But it's in the self-interest of the "screener" or
psychiatrist to have the person committed.

I'd choose psychiatry over something like Scientology if a family member
were sick, but to be candid, the results aren't much different.

...

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

dr_jeff wrote:
On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/


[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts
on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical
researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they
advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......

That's the cool thing about science: It's self correcting. I wonder how
he comes up with 90% figure.


Eventually self-correcting; that doesn't help those patients who got
lobotomized in the 20th century, for example.
....

What the article doesn't mention is that science is self-correcting. It
found out that the articles were wrong. What about con-med (conjecture
based-medicine or alternative medicine)? It is not self-correcting,
except for what brings in more income.

Again, *eventually* self-correcting. That may take many years.

Jeff

On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/
....

he worries that the field of
medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with
conflicts of
interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change-or even to
publicly admitting that there's a problem.

Conflict of interest is the main problem, especially in semi-scientific
fields like psychiatry. If their treatments aren't working, why go to a
psych ward? But it's in the self-interest of the "screener" or
psychiatrist to have the person committed.

I'd choose psychiatry over something like Scientology if a family member
were sick, but to be candid, the results aren't much different.

....

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

dr_jeff wrote:
On 10/19/10 8:41 PM, jigo wrote:
dr_jeff wrote:
On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/



[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known
as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts
on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical
researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind
when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they
advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery
for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often
flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......

That's the cool thing about science: It's self correcting. I wonder
how he comes up with 90% figure.


Eventually self-correcting; that doesn't help those patients who got
lobotomized in the 20th century, for example.
...

All we can do is the best we can. And science is the best way to gain
knowledge about health and the body.

What the article doesn't mention is that science is self-correcting.
It found out that the articles were wrong. What about con-med
(conjecture based-medicine or alternative medicine)? It is not
self-correcting, except for what brings in more income.

Again, *eventually* self-correcting. That may take many years.

Give us a better alternative.


I don't think there is a better alternative. That doesn't mean we
should ignore the abuses I pointed out


On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

...

he worries that the field of
medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with
conflicts of
interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change-or even to
publicly admitting that there's a problem.

Conflict of interest is the main problem, especially in semi-scientific
fields like psychiatry. If their treatments aren't working, why go to a
psych ward? But it's in the self-interest of the "screener" or
psychiatrist to have the person committed.

I'd choose psychiatry over something like Scientology if a family member
were sick, but to be candid, the results aren't much different.

...

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

"Bob Officer" [email protected] wrote in message ...
On Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:18:33 +1100, in misc.health.alternative,
"carole" wrote:


"Bob Officer" [email protected] wrote in message ...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 06:40:16 -0400, in misc.health.alternative,
dr_jeff wrote:

On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......

That's the cool thing about science: It's self correcting. I wonder how
he comes up with 90% figure.

he worries that the field of
medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of
interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change-or even to
publicly admitting that there's a problem.
......His model predicted, in different fields of medical research, rates of
wrongness roughly corresponding to the observed rates at which findings were
later convincingly refuted: 80 percent of non-randomized studies (by far the
most common type) turn out to be wrong, as do 25 percent of supposedly
gold-standard randomized trials, and as much as 10 percent of the
platinum-standard large randomized trials.

So 90% of the platinum-standard large randomized trials are right!

What are the known error bars for non-randomized studies?
What are the known error bars randomized small non-blinded studies?
What are the known error bars for large randomized double blinded
studies?

Exactly what his model shows, isn't it?

The article spelled out his
belief that researchers were frequently manipulating data analyses, chasing
career-advancing findings rather than good science, and even using the
peer-review process-in which journals ask researchers to help decide which
studies to publish-to suppress opposing views.
......Of the 49 articles, 45 claimed to have uncovered effective
interventions. Thirty-four of these claims had been retested, and 14 of
these, or 41 percent, had been convincingly shown to be wrong or
significantly exaggerated. If between a third and a half of the most
acclaimed research in medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and
impact of the problem were undeniable.

What the article doesn't mention is that science is self-correcting. It
found out that the articles were wrong. What about con-med (conjecture
based-medicine or alternative medicine)? It is not self-correcting,
except for what brings in more income.

Even his study is part of the process. the corrections are made and
flawed studies are so marked.

IIRC a study with food suppliments in chickens was pretty much
shredded here because it was flawed, not double blinded, or masked.

The article also made a bad assumption.
"If between a third and a half of the most acclaimed research in
medicine was proving untrustworthy, the scope and impact of the
problem were undeniable."

Not all medical research is used in every day medicine. Most research
published ends up being retested, and then retested again.

None randomized studies go on and provide the basis or rational for
small randomized studies, which provide the basis or rational for
large randomized studies.

The best thing about science is the right t challenge research and
papers. just like what happened to Wakefield.

Science may not be prefect, but it is the best Tool/System we have.

Science isn't perfect yet it holds itself up as the standard and everything else is wrong.
When 90% of studies have flaws, where do they get off casting aspersions on alternative health?

Try the math once more...

It doesn't work out to 90% Carole. But then anyone with a modicum of
math skills would see that.

ok, "as much as" 90% -- better?

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

"Much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong. So why are doctors-to a
striking extent-still drawing upon misinformation in their everyday practice? Dr. John Ioannidis has spent his career challenging
his peers by exposing their bad science."

"He's [Ioannidi] what's known as a meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts on the credibility of
medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or
when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain-is misleading,
exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely
on is flawed."


--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
Most people have built in "slides" that short circuit the mind's critical examination process when it comes to certain sensitive
topics. "Slides" is a CIA term for a conditioned type of response which dead-ends a person's thinking, and terminates debate or
examination of the topic. For example, the mention of the word "conspiracy" usually solicits a slide response with many
eople. -Fritz Springmeier (author)

Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
 

"dr_jeff" wrote in message ...
On 10/19/10 8:41 PM, jigo wrote:
dr_jeff wrote:
On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/


[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts
on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical
researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they
advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery
for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often
flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......

That's the cool thing about science: It's self correcting. I wonder
how he comes up with 90% figure.


Eventually self-correcting; that doesn't help those patients who got
lobotomized in the 20th century, for example.
...

All we can do is the best we can. And science is the best way to gain knowledge about health and the body.

What the article doesn't mention is that science is self-correcting.
It found out that the articles were wrong. What about con-med
(conjecture based-medicine or alternative medicine)? It is not
self-correcting, except for what brings in more income.

Again, *eventually* self-correcting. That may take many years.

Give us a better alternative.

Depends on whether you're talking about medical intervention for emergencies or long-term treatment of chronic disease.
Conventional medicine is good for the former but alternative good for the latter.


--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
"When you have ruled out the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth." -writer Arthur Conan-Doyle