This morning, thanks to a link provided by a Facebook friend, I read an “Atlantic” article (see http://tinyurl.com/35fe5kb ) that didn’t entirely surprise me but, well, provided some fodder for reflection…
Upon finishing the article, my first thought was: could this provide an answer to the questions that Art asks in the comments that he left on my recent “dietary fish oil” post? Namely, why did the fish oil researchers use such an unusual ratio of DHA/EPA in their mouse study? What is the point, since that particular ratio is not commercially available? Why didn’t they use an EPA/DHA ratio that comes close to what we, fish oil consumers, can buy? Very odd. For the moment, though, until we know more, those questions remain unanswered.
Let’s have a look at a few interesting quotes from the “Atlantic” article: “Randomized controlled trials,” which compare how one group responds to a treatment against how an identical group fares without the treatment, had long been considered nearly unshakable evidence, but they, too, ended up being wrong some of the time. “I realized even our gold-standard research had a lot of problems,” he says. Baffled, he started looking for the specific ways in which studies were going wrong. And before long he discovered that the range of errors being committed was astonishing: from what questions researchers posed, to how they set up the studies, to which patients they recruited for the studies, to which measurements they took, to how they analyzed the data, to how they presented their results, to how particular studies came to be published in medical journals.
The “he” mentioned in the above paragraph is Prof. John Ioannidis, one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He found that 80% of non-randomized controlled trials, and as much as 20% of randomized trials, are wrong!
Oh, but this sentence struck a chord with me: We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it’s easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously.
It reminded me of a very peculiar and quite awkward attempt ( http://tinyurl.com/ygl775x ) by a group of Belgian researchers to scare people diagnosed with MGUS from using curcumin. They write that curcumin inhibits IL-12, which plays a central role in protecting us against pathogens and tumors. The central part of their argument is based on one, and only ONE!, case…the case of a man with all sorts of ailments…their conclusion was so full of holes that it looked more like a lump of Swiss cheese than anything else… Anyway, I reported about that “study” in March 2010, so I don’t need to repeat what I have already written: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/2010/03/30/brussels-sprouts-instead-of-broccoli-part-2/
A few days after publishing that post, a light bulb went off in my head. I checked the effect that some of the drugs used in conventional myeloma treatment have on IL-12. Well, lo and behold!, I found that all of them, from Velcade to thalidomide, inhibit IL-12. So why aren’t scientists and researchers all over the world getting all upset about , eh? The obvious answer still makes me seethe with anger…By the way, here is the link to my third (and final) scathing post: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/2010/04/01/about-to-leave-for-rome%e2%80%a6and-a-few-random-thoughts%e2%80%a6/ .
This proves the point made in the “Atlantic” article–that researchers can manipulate and use data for their own purposes. In this particular case, this group of Belgian researchers conveniently ”forgot” that–every single day, all over the world–thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of myeloma patients receive drugs that inhibit IL-12 undoubtedly in a much more stronger manner than curcumin (which is a drug)…
Again, I quote Prof. Ioannidis: “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.” Comfortable?? I find it shocking…absolutely shocking…
This morning, thanks to a link provided by a Facebook friend, I read an “Atlantic” article (see http://tinyurl.com/35fe5kb ) that didn’t entirely surprise me but, well, provided some fodder for reflection…
Upon finishing the article, my first thought was: could this provide an answer to the questions that Art asks in the comments that he left on my recent “dietary fish oil” post? Namely, why did the fish oil researchers use such an unusual ratio of DHA/EPA in their mouse study? What is the point, since that particular ratio is not commercially available? Why didn’t they use an EPA/DHA ratio that comes close to what we, fish oil consumers, can buy? Very odd. For the moment, though, until we know more, those questions remain unanswered.
Let’s have a look at a few interesting quotes from the “Atlantic” article: “Randomized controlled trials,” which compare how one group responds to a treatment against how an identical group fares without the treatment, had long been considered nearly unshakable evidence, but they, too, ended up being wrong some of the time. “I realized even our gold-standard research had a lot of problems,” he says. Baffled, he started looking for the specific ways in which studies were going wrong. And before long he discovered that the range of errors being committed was astonishing: from what questions researchers posed, to how they set up the studies, to which patients they recruited for the studies, to which measurements they took, to how they analyzed the data, to how they presented their results, to how particular studies came to be published in medical journals.
The “he” mentioned in the above paragraph is Prof. John Ioannidis, one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He found that 80% of non-randomized controlled trials, and as much as 20% of randomized trials, are wrong!
Oh, but this sentence struck a chord with me: We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it’s easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously.
It reminded me of a very peculiar and quite awkward attempt ( http://tinyurl.com/ygl775x ) by a group of Belgian researchers to scare people diagnosed with MGUS from using curcumin. They write that curcumin inhibits IL-12, which plays a central role in protecting us against pathogens and tumors. The central part of their argument is based on one, and only ONE!, case…the case of a man with all sorts of ailments…their conclusion was so full of holes that it looked more like a lump of Swiss cheese than anything else… Anyway, I reported about that “study” in March 2010, so I don’t need to repeat what I have already written: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/2010/03/30/brussels-sprouts-instead-of-broccoli-part-2/
A few days after publishing that post, a light bulb went off in my head. I checked the effect that some of the drugs used in conventional myeloma treatment have on IL-12. Well, lo and behold!, I found that all of them, from Velcade to thalidomide, inhibit IL-12. So why aren’t scientists and researchers all over the world getting all upset about , eh? The obvious answer still makes me seethe with anger…By the way, here is the link to my third (and final) scathing post: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/2010/04/01/about-to-leave-for-rome%e2%80%a6and-a-few-random-thoughts%e2%80%a6/ .
This proves the point made in the “Atlantic” article–that researchers can manipulate and use data for their own purposes. In this particular case, this group of Belgian researchers conveniently ”forgot” that–every single day, all over the world–thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of myeloma patients receive drugs that inhibit IL-12 undoubtedly in a much more stronger manner than curcumin (which is a drug)…
Again, I quote Prof. Ioannidis: “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.” Comfortable?? I find it shocking…absolutely shocking…
Written by Margaret
October 14th, 2010 at 8:24 am