If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
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. .... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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. ... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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. ... |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
On 10/22/2010 1:30 AM, carole wrote:
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. Assuming this dichotomy exists, why do you think it exists? What examples would you give? Steve -- Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS http://www.dentaltwins.com Brooklyn, NY 718-258-5001 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lies, Damned Lies and CDC Autism Statistics | john[_5_] | Kids Health | 0 | December 29th 09 12:42 AM |
Mercury Amalgam Fillings: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics | The One True Zhen Jue | General | 3 | August 1st 07 06:16 AM |
Mark Probert's Superior STUPIDITY Prevails Again ... He LIES about his lies yet again | Ilena Rose | Kids Health | 4 | October 23rd 04 08:38 PM |
Doan lies yet again..was.. Kane0 lies again Doan's phony offer to "debate" | Kane | Spanking | 6 | May 14th 04 02:10 AM |
Lies, damned lies and statistics or GIGO | Fern5827 | Spanking | 3 | August 29th 03 03:36 PM |