A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"Studies" and anecdotes.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 30th, 2012, 07:40 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default "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  
Old October 1st, 2012, 01:44 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default "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  
Old October 1st, 2012, 01:30 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default "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  
Old October 1st, 2012, 02:05 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default "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  
Old October 1st, 2012, 02:06 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Walter Bushell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 142
Default "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  
Old October 1st, 2012, 03:23 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Doug Freyburger
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,866
Default "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  
Old October 1st, 2012, 06:16 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Dogman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 540
Default "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  
Old October 2nd, 2012, 10:36 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default "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  
Old October 2nd, 2012, 10:37 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
James Warren[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 40
Default "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  
Old October 3rd, 2012, 03:45 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default "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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 09:47 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 05:10 PM
"Friends are born, not made." !!!! By: "Henry Brooks Adams" [email protected] Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 1st, 2007 05:27 PM
Mark Twain's "Smoking is Good for You" , and "Being Fat Can SaveYour Life" Jbuch Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 January 20th, 2007 04:20 PM
define "healthy" or "fit" or "athletic" oregonchick General Discussion 7 September 16th, 2006 12:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.