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
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
http://blog.ted.com/2012/09/27/5-pre...heir-patients/ "'Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments,” writes Goldacre in his book. 'When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true effects.'" Yet another reason that most "studies" today are mostly propaganda, and, in many ways, not much different than a bunch of anecdotes. http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...itute-anecdote "Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence" "Epidemiology, in its present form, a poor substitute for anecdote." "It is not to be wondered at that anecdotal evidence is the major source of knowledge in this subject, practical epidemiology has failed the patient completely, and confidence in the system has been badly affected." -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
On 30/09/2012 3:40 PM, Dogman wrote:
http://blog.ted.com/2012/09/27/5-pre...heir-patients/ "'Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments,” writes Goldacre in his book. 'When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true effects.'" Yet another reason that most "studies" today are mostly propaganda, and, in many ways, not much different than a bunch of anecdotes. This is why the government, not the drug companies, should test drugs. If drug companies are to do it then they should be closely monitored and all results published. The problem of "bottom drawer" studies should be addressed by ensuring that results of all studies are made public. http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...itute-anecdote "Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence" "Epidemiology, in its present form, a poor substitute for anecdote." "It is not to be wondered at that anecdotal evidence is the major source of knowledge in this subject, practical epidemiology has failed the patient completely, and confidence in the system has been badly affected." Epidemiology can never be a substitute for a random controlled study. Epidemiology studies cannot control for confounding. -- -jw |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
On Sep 30, 2:41*pm, Dogman wrote:
http://blog.ted.com/2012/09/27/5-pre...tors-had-no-id... "'Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments,” writes Goldacre in his book. 'When trials throw up results that companies don’t like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug’s true effects.'" Yet another reason that most "studies" today are mostly propaganda, and, in many ways, not much different than a bunch of anecdotes. http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...gy-its-present... "Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence" "Epidemiology, in its present form, a poor substitute for anecdote." "It is not to be wondered at that anecdotal evidence is the major source of knowledge in this subject, practical epidemiology has failed the patient completely, and confidence in the system has been badly affected." -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman This stunning indictment comes from the guy who claims to have used the "scientific method" to conclude: HIV is harmless HIV is not the cause of AIDS AIDS is caused by diet and lack of sleep No virus can cause cancer HPV is not a cause of cervical cancer And he's going to lecture us on studies? The truth is dogman's method is that he starts with pre-conceived notions and then ignores studies that don't agree with those notions. In the cases above, that is one hell of a mountain of studies and scientific evidence. And of course, he has no studies that back up his kook notions. His idea of science is to rely on a paper written back in 1985, when little was known, that speculated on what might be a cause of AIDS. nuff said..... |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
In article ,
James Warren wrote: This is why the government, not the drug companies, should test drugs. If drug companies are to do it then they should be closely monitored and all results published. The problem of "bottom drawer" studies should be addressed by ensuring that results of all studies are made public. But ah, with the amount of money the drug companies can invest in bribes, winks of job offers and so on, can we really trust the government to objectively test drugs? Actually you don't even have to wink, if you have hired civil servants etcetera who have made favorable rulings at greatly increased salaries, and perhaps gotten people who ruled against you in the doghouse. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. One thing is that side effects are under reported and even if you tell your doctor, the doctor may well blow off the complaint with "That drug does not cause that." or "You getting old, deal with it." and so on. -- This space unintentionally left blank. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
In article ,
James Warren wrote: Epidemiology can never be a substitute for a random controlled study. Epidemiology studies cannot control for confounding. And, of course, drug companies can easily be confounded especially when it's profitable. -- This space unintentionally left blank. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
James Warren wrote:
Dogman wrote: http://blog.ted.com/2012/09/27/5-pre...heir-patients/ "'Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials ... This is why the government, not the drug companies, should test drugs. To the extent that funding is avaialble they do. Professors in endowed chairs at private universities do so as well. One of the ways that science works is because of these mechanisms reality always comes through. Eventually. In the case of medicine the relative funding and activity levels can and do push through nonsense for a while. If your time scale is centuries it's all just transients in the current stance of science. None of us who have any medical issue can wait centuries. We have seen issues come out on a time scale of decades. Still too slow for anyone with medical issues. If drug companies are to do it then they should be closely monitored and all results published. They already are as closely monitored as relative funding allows. You will notice that Dr Atkins funded a foundation to conduct private research, which is yet another route in addition to government and endowed chairs that science checks itself. I don't have any answer that would not slow the progress of medical science. Rather than "published" I think you really mean "made public". Articles get published in peer reviewed journals and now on line as well. There's the problem that private industry should be able to retain privacy of its own efforts and investments contrasted with the need of the public for valid data. That goes down the political rat hole of collectivists wanting to take away the efforts of the productive people in society. The patent system is designed as the primary compromise between those two stances just as foundations, chairs and government are designed as the primary compromise between privately owned science and public science. The patent system is too complex but the timing of its granted monopolies are well thought out - And why I would rather have generics when given the option. Right now it's very easy for me personallly to be on the generic bandwagon as I'm only on one perscrption and it has been available in generic form for decades. Had I an immediate need for a patented medication my bias would reverse. The problem of "bottom drawer" studies should be addressed by ensuring that results of all studies are made public. Right. The question becomes how and after how long in order for their to be a profit incentive to continue development. http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...itute-anecdote "Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence" "Epidemiology, in its present form, a poor substitute for anecdote." "It is not to be wondered at that anecdotal evidence is the major source of knowledge in this subject, practical epidemiology has failed the patient completely, and confidence in the system has been badly affected." Epidemiology can never be a substitute for a random controlled study. Epidemiology studies cannot control for confounding. Confounding is what low carbers have faced for decades. Studies that seem to confirm low fat confound the fact that such studies often ignore carb intake. Back in the 1970s Dr Atkins tried to publish his tabluar data. Because it was not double blind it was declined for publication. From then on he became a consumer of studies not a conductor of studies. But in the end he was correct and the people participating in the "big fat lie" were/are incorrect. How do you propose to conduct a double blind study for diet? When the people eating the foods are humans? Good luck with that. And so there are studies but to acheive double blind status they have to be extremely specific. Being extremely specific they are very subject to confounding. At this point there are very many studies on small details of metabolism that address low carb issues. The science is there. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 09:05:03 -0400, Walter Bushell
wrote: [...] But ah, with the amount of money the drug companies can invest in bribes, winks of job offers and so on, can we really trust the government to objectively test drugs? Of course not. We can't trust the government to get the freakin' mail delivered on time. The government is the problem, not the solution. We can thank the government for pushing us down the low-fat/high-carb road to begin with. And they're *still* pushing it! But we *can* trust in the Scientific Method. What we need is transparency (especially when public funds are being used). And laws that call for a trip to the slammer for those "scientists" who intentionally falsify/hide data. And ditto the corporate officers and government officials who allow it. Maybe a kind of Sarbanes-Oxley Act (regarding financial disclosures), but for scientific claims, etc. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
On 01/10/2012 10:05 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
In article , James Warren wrote: This is why the government, not the drug companies, should test drugs. If drug companies are to do it then they should be closely monitored and all results published. The problem of "bottom drawer" studies should be addressed by ensuring that results of all studies are made public. But ah, with the amount of money the drug companies can invest in bribes, winks of job offers and so on, can we really trust the government to objectively test drugs? Actually you don't even have to wink, if you have hired civil servants etcetera who have made favorable rulings at greatly increased salaries, and perhaps gotten people who ruled against you in the doghouse. You don't have to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. One thing is that side effects are under reported and even if you tell your doctor, the doctor may well blow off the complaint with "That drug does not cause that." or "You getting old, deal with it." and so on. That's why good studies have control groups and group membership is not known to anyone until the end of the study. -- -jw |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
On 01/10/2012 10:06 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
In article , James Warren wrote: Epidemiology can never be a substitute for a random controlled study. Epidemiology studies cannot control for confounding. And, of course, drug companies can easily be confounded especially when it's profitable. An alternate meaning of confounding. -- -jw |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"Studies" and anecdotes.
On Oct 2, 8:22*pm, James Warren wrote:
On 01/10/2012 1:55 PM, Dogman wrote: On Mon, 1 Oct 2012 05:30:38 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: [...] http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...gy-its-present.... "Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence" "Epidemiology, in its present form, a poor substitute for anecdote." "It is not to be wondered at that anecdotal evidence is the major source of knowledge in this subject, practical epidemiology has failed the patient completely, and confidence in the system has been badly affected." This stunning indictment comes from the guy No, actually, this stunning indictment comes from the British Medical Journal, Dr. Ben Goldacre, and a "study" published in Nature. Because I know how much you and James "I'm no sock puppet!" Warren love "studies"! I'm merely the messenger, and you know what they say you shouldn't do to messengers, right? If you really dislike studies so much, what you replace them with? It's not that he dislikes studies. He just dislikes ones that don't agree with his preconceived notions. He'll ignore a thousand of those, and find one that agrees with his views and use it. Look at the mountain of studies one has to ignore to come to the conclusion that HIV is harmless and not the cause of AIDS, like Dogman claims. In fact on that one, there isn't even a single study that shows HIV isn't the cause of AIDS. I've asked for such a study repeatedly and all we got were crickets. At the same time, I've referred him to NIH which has an entire webpage with links to all the studies done over many years that show HIV is the cause of AIDS and he calls that PR hype. What is the difference between a study and a "study"? One is a study that supports his view, the other is one that demolishes it. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
BLIMPS REJOICE! "Grilled" At KFC Means You Can Gobble More Pieces OfChicken Than The Original "Boogies On A Bone" Fried Artery-Cloggers! | Lil' Barb | General Discussion | 2 | November 25th, 2009 08:47 AM |
BUSH NATION: 36.2 Million Human Beings HUNGRY! Your "CompassionateConservative" Says, "Hell, Ah'm Retirin' Soon." | Kilicrankie P. Smith | General Discussion | 2 | November 19th, 2008 04:10 PM |
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" | [email protected] | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | February 1st, 2007 04:27 PM |
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" | Jbuch | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 0 | January 20th, 2007 03:20 PM |
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" | oregonchick | General Discussion | 7 | September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM |