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.

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

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.

....

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.

...

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.

...

"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

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