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
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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. ... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. .... |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
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. ... |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
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 |