The Importance of Anecdotal Evidence

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Dave Wickware, May 17, 2004.

  1. In the last thirty some years scientists and their advocates
    constantly refer to first person testimony dissmissingly as
    anecdotal evidence. They tell us that these are just stories
    that are of little use in ascertaining the truth. They want
    us to believe that a persons first hand experiences and
    testimony about them are of no merit. They want us to
    believe that a doctor or caregivers documented empirical
    observations buttressing the patients testimony are of
    little value also.

    What we need, the scientists tell us, are numerous double-
    blind studies, clinical trials, peer reviews, charts,
    statistics and publication in medical journals in order to
    establish the veracity of any particular treatment. The
    scientist bases his argument on the fact that double blind
    studies are more reliable than first person testimony
    because his results are reproducable by other scientists at
    any laboratory throughout the world. The theory holds that
    experiment "A" is performed in New York and produces "A+B=
    C" results. If experiment "A" is performed in Chicago,
    Miami, Los Angeles, Stockholm, Hong Kong etc the scientists
    should produce the same results as the experiment performed
    in New York, as long as they strictly adhere to the
    protocols of the experiment.

    I will now discuss the many large flaws that exist with double-
    blind studies and clinical trials associated with cancer
    research in establishing the truth, and the importance of
    anecdotal evidence.

    1. Firstly, clinical drug trials are far more difficult to
    reproduce than mechanical experiments. Humans have
    different reactions to drugs, to dosages, different
    metabolisms. A double blind study is one in which neither
    the doctor nor the patient knows who is getting the drug
    or who is getting the placebo (fake pill). The problem
    with chemotherapy double blind studies is that everyone
    knows who is receiving the drug because of the horrendous
    side effects of chemotherapy. Therefore the whole point
    of it is lost.

    In several cases cancer drug trials are not verified, but
    contradicted, by other studies in different parts of the
    world. Oftentimes these contradictory results are not
    reported or are dimissed as not accurate. A perfect example
    is the recent supposed chemoprevention drug Tamoxifen.
    Tamoxifen is supposed to prevent woman from getting breast
    cancer. An NCI study claimed a 45% decrease in breast cancer
    for some woman when treated with Tamoxifen. Smaller studies
    in Italy and England found that there was no benefit from
    Tamoxifen.

    2. Scientists tell us a persons word is of little use but
    they want us to believe their word. They want us to
    believe that they have run the drug trials honestly and
    objectively. The major problem with this is that there
    is a huge monetary incentive from the pharmaceutical
    company for doctors to manipulate drug trials and there
    have been several instances where they have distorted
    data. Scientists are just as open to corruption as
    anybody else.

    The Tamoxifen trials are again a perfect case in point. A
    surgeon named Bernard Fisher was the main advocate for
    testing Tamoxifen as a preventative. He began testing in the
    early 1980's using tax-payer funded NSABP.

    The excerpt below is taken from a lengthy article by Life
    Extension magazine in May 1999 about Tamoxifen;

    "In 1990, it was discovered that a doctor participating in
    NSABP trials had falsified data for 99 people enrolled in 14
    breast cancer studies that preceded the prevention trials.
    Fisher was accused of not reporting the falsification, then
    using the data in an article published in the New England
    Journal of Medicine. In 1993, it was discovered that
    secretaries in charge of enrolling women at a hospital
    participating in the breast cancer prevention trial had
    manufactured data..."

    This is the inherent major flaw with the supposed exacting
    accuracy of double-blind studies. Cancer clinical trials and
    double blind studies are extremely costly for drug
    companies, often running into many millions of dollars. The
    scientists are under pressure to come up with the "right"
    results for the drug companies, otherwise they will go to
    another drug testing facility. There is a large monetary
    incentive for doctors and scant chance of getting caught.
    That is why I have little faith in the integrity of these
    trials. Too much money is on the line and fraud has been
    proven in several over the last forty years. We don't know
    which trials are rigged and which are honest, so they all
    are tainted.

    3. The National cancer Institute hands out hundreds of
    millions of dollars in grant money each year. A cancer
    cure would mean an end to the grant money trough for the
    tens of thousands of scientists who make a living from
    it. Thousands of scientists make a very good living from
    these expensive and very time consuming clinical trials.

    As author Barry Lynes says in "The Cancer Cure That
    Worked" pg 126;

    "It took me years to realize that the people in control of
    the cancer treatment world today did not want a simple ,
    quick cure for cancer. It was not in their economic or
    career interest. They want complicated disease syndromes
    and all the paraphernalia of techniques, expert analysis,
    peer group conferences, papers, discussions, research
    grants and clinical trials for years before a new cancer
    therapy might be allowed. It is a horrendous crime which
    serves only those "inside" who are playing the great,
    lucrative "expert" game."
     
    Tags:


  2. Soulless Plagarizer & Spamming Bag of Disorganized Feces, David Wickware
    PLAGERIZED:

    >In the last thirty some years scientists and their
    >advocates constantly refer to first person testimony
    >dissmissingly as anecdotal evidence.

    Hey, Asshole Dave, can't you write your own material?

    Original citation from:
    http://www.bahnhof.se/~wizard/cryptoworld/index9a.html
     
  3. Thisisfun

    Thisisfun Guest

    "Vitamins are Chemicals" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > Soulless Plagarizer & Spamming Bag of Disorganized Feces,
    > David Wickware PLAGERIZED:
    >
    > >In the last thirty some years scientists and their
    > >advocates constantly refer to first person testimony
    > >dissmissingly as anecdotal evidence.
    >
    > Hey, Asshole Dave, can't you write your own material?
    >
    > Original citation from:
    http://www.bahnhof.se/~wizard/cryptoworld/index9a.html
    Hey ilsa, can't you stop lusting after other peoples
    solid waste?
     
  4. David Wright

    David Wright Guest

    In article <[email protected]>,
    Vitamins are Chemicals <[email protected]> wrote:
    >Soulless Plagarizer & Spamming Bag of Disorganized Feces,
    >David Wickware PLAGERIZED:
    >
    >>In the last thirty some years scientists and their
    >>advocates constantly refer to first person testimony
    >>dissmissingly as anecdotal evidence.
    >
    >Hey, Asshole Dave, can't you write your own material?

    I assume your question to Spammin' Dave was rhetorical. He
    is obviously incapable of writing such material, as it would
    require both intelligence and knowledge, two areas in which
    he is sadly deficient.

    >Original citation from:
    >http://www.bahnhof.se/~wizard/cryptoworld/index9a.html

    Ah, I wondered where he got his stuff, since he was
    obviously plagiarizing it. Since he's too stupid and
    ignorant to write it himself, clearly he was stealing it. So
    now we know he's also too dishonest to credit his sources.

    -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my
    opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I
    have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were
    standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
     
  5. "thisisfun" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Vitamins are Chemicals" <[email protected]> wrote in
    > message news:[email protected]
    > m13.aol.com...
    > > Soulless Plagarizer & Spamming Bag of Disorganized
    > > Feces, David Wickware PLAGERIZED:
    > >
    > > >In the last thirty some years scientists and their
    > > >advocates constantly refer to first person testimony
    > > >dissmissingly as anecdotal evidence.
    > >
    > > Hey, Asshole Dave, can't you write your own material?
    > >
    > > Original citation from:
    > http://www.bahnhof.se/~wizard/cryptoworld/index9a.html
    > Hey ilsa, can't you stop lusting after other peoples
    > solid waste?

    Ilsa! Do not lust after thisisfun, etc.
     
Loading...