In article <[email hidden]>,
(soft-eng) said:Orac <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:Actually, it's more likely that MOST things labeled as alternative medicine will not work. Why
do I say that? Beause MOST new conventional medicines are found not to work as they wind their
way through the testing process.
The concept of an "open" mind seems to turn on your mental immune system.
The concept of an "open mind" seems to make your brain leak out of your ears, so "open" is
your mind.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Like conventional, there is a learning curve involved.
If they are also like conventional, the vast majority of treatments will not work and only a few
will be validated.
What you don't seem to understand that people have been able to figure out that eating wheat or
bananas would not kill you, despite lack of rigorous clinical trial.
Straw man. No one has said that they would or that a clinical trial was needed to say that they
wouldn't. Certainly I haven't. Moreover, we are not talking about eating wheat or bananas as a
therapy, or as anything other than part of a healthy diet.
Quoted message said:Such information has been collected over thousands of years, and is MUCH more accurate about side
effects than a mere 3-5 year clinical trial could ever hope to be ("Thalidomide" anyone? And that
was before phamas had figured out how to cover up well.)
Actually, thalidomide was never approved for use in the U.S., mainly because it had not been
adequately tested in clinical trials.
It was recently approved for use for certain malignancies and a couple of other conditions, but with
warnings that it is absolutely not to be taken by women who might be pregnant or who are even
thinking of becoming pregnant.
Quoted message said:So a remedy like chiorpractic based in ancient greece, or herbal remedies based upon thousands of
years of experience, are more likely to be reasonably safe and be side-effect free than some
chemical someone randomly stumbled upon.
Perhaps, but they're no more likely to be effective
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:When studies like this are done, a lot of people may think "Well, maybe the people who did
this study lied".
Nope. Only very rarely do we think that the people who did the study are intentionally deceiving
(a.k.a. "lying"😉.
Exactly. *You* don't think so. The mass population doesn't share your faith, as evidenced by the
growth of various alternative treatments.
There's a difference between bias and intentionally lying. Intentionally lying in scientific papers
is relatively rare. Bias or selective reporting is more common, which is why we have the peer review
system and why clinical trials have so many rules.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Your statement reveals a truly profound ignorance of the scientific method. The entire
scientific method and design of clinical trials are the way they are in recognition of the fact
of human nature that some people lie and that people in general may have a bias that might lead
them to exaggerate positive data and downplay negative data. The whole reason for randomization
is to keep researchers from moving more favorable prognosis patients into the treatment arm. The
whole reason for double-blinding is that the doctors and researchers may behave and act
differently for patients they know to be getting the experimental
And what good is all of that if the researcher in the end just ignores the data and makes up what
the funder wants to see?
Well, first it's rather hard to "make up" data in clinical trials, because there is a long paper
trail for each patient enrolled. Downplaying negative results or overplaying positive results is
more of a concern. Also, journals now require researchers to disclose their funding sources and any
financial interest in the work right up front. So do national meetings. So does practically every
university where a researcher might be invited to speak.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:treatment. The whole reason for peer review is to try to catch bias and distortions. The entire
scientific method with regards to clinical
And the entire establishment using said scientific method can have a systematic bias introduced
because of the nature of funding etc. People fight very hard when such research is even slightly
questioned (look at yourself as evidence.)
Well, actually, I have no industry funding or any financial interest in my research.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:On the other hand, I could point out that you have chosen to believe that "some people lie"
MAINLY when it comes to published research and not so much when it comes to anecdotes and
testimonials.
I look for motive. Someone selling an alternative medicine has a motive to lie.
Indeed. Or they could simply have put their faith in the wrong thing. I do not assume alties pushing
a product are lying. Some truly believe.
Quoted message said:So is someone selling a conventional medicine. Otoh, people sharing anecdotes is normal, and is as
old as civilization.
True.
Quoted message said:With the lack of a motive, it is assumed that the anecdotal evidence will be often true.
False, for reasons I've explained over and over again, so much so that I'm getting tired of
explaining it over and over again. The plural of "anecdotes" is not "data."
Quoted message said:It may not filter out placebo effects etc, but over time and over numerous anecdotes, it will get
filtered out.
No, what happens is that people remember what they perceive as successes and forget the failures.
The human mind also likes to make connections; so it often connects good outcomes with things that
may have had nothing to do with the good outcome. It's simple human nature, something you don't seem
to understand very well. Even people who are aware of these pitfalls can fall victim to them. All
too often, what gets "filtered out" are what people don't want to remember.
This is yet another reason why clinical trials are designed the way they are, to minimize the effect
of people making connections that aren't there.
Quoted message said:I cannot provide a hard and fast rule for trusting anecdotes. It's a judgement issue, and not a
hard-logic issue. But nor do I share your position that anecdotal wisdom is automatically suspect,
and establishment wisdom is not.
Straw man. I never said that establishment wisdom should not be subject to the same skepticism that
anecdotes are. The difference is that good data and good science ultimately overcome skepticism.
Anecdotes generally do not.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"
