12 replies to this topic

[stocks]

If we cannot trust the academic literature of medicine for an objective view of reality, whom can we trust? I will not attempt to answer that question but I do want to point out that it is crystal clear that we CANNOT trust the academic medical literature. Anyone who knows anything about that literature will know how subject to fashion it is and how what is proclaimed as bad for you in one era is in a later era proclaimed as good for you (e.g. alcohol).

There is more than fashion at work, however. As I document daily on my Food & Health Skeptic blog, there is a constant flood of absurdities appearing in the medical literature. There needs to be more than fashion behind that. And what is behind it is simply attention-seeking. Every scientist wants to be seen as someone who has "discovered" something. But real discoveries are rare so the slightest hint that a scientist has observed something going on will be trumpeted worldwide. And because real discoveries are rare, any purported discovery will be piled onto by lots of other scientists who want to be in on the glory of having made a contribution to the elucidation of this new phenomenon.

The clearest example of this is the cholesterol and polyunsaturated fats obsession. To cut a long story short, there is NO evidence that a low cholesterol diet lowers the amount of cholesterol in your blood nor is there any evidence that saturated fats in your diet are bad for you. In fact, some studies have shown that people on a diet low in saturated fats die SOONER. I have a research review up -- just above this post -- that sets out in detail the evidence concerned. Yet we are still bombarded with messages about the desirability of a diet low in cholesterol and low in saturated fats. Our supermarkets are full of products that prominently and proudly proclaim that they are "low" in those constituents.

So why have the research findings not got through to the general public? Because scientists themselves ignore research that does not suit them. Let me tell you why:

The "easy" area of medical research is epidemiology: Take a large group of patients. Get reports from them on where they stand on a variety of attributes (e.g. how fat they are or how much fat they eat) and then wait to see who dies. Once you have got a large enough group of dead patients you then look through your files to see if there is something that the dead patients tend to have more of. Very often you find something, as you would on chance alone. Real scientists refer to such a procedure as "data dredging" and discount it but real scientists are a rare breed. Attention-seeking scientists are far more common and it is their reports of such rubbish findings that fill the medical literature.

But such rubbish findings are a godsend to other scientists. They can then put in for big funding to study this new finding. There is a new bandwagon that they can leap onto. But the only really conclusive way of verifying or falsifying the new "finding" is a longditudinal double-blind study -- i.e. you have to get a large and representative group of people and get half of them to change their ways in some respect (e.g. eat less fat). You then wait for years and see which group dies soonest. And at the end of that time what do you find? You typically find that the epidemiological hypothesis is not confirmed. The intervention (change) you have done to people's habits is just as likely to have done harm as good but most often it has done nothing at all. And that is where the cholesterol and saturated fat research has arrived at after all the years during which the "evil fat" gospel has been rammed down people's throats.

So where do you go from there? Do you admit that the theory you have built your career on (and which has delivered to you a cornucopia of research dollars) was all wrong? I think you can guess the answer to that. What you say is: "More research is needed" -- and carry on as before. And the poor old mug taxpayer coughs up more dollars to keep the nonsense alive.

And much the same applies to global warming theory. It initially looked good but, as more and more evidence accumulates, the holes in it get bigger and bigger. You can see that in the IPCC reports. They have progressively scaled down their predictions of what sea-level rise we are to expect. But there is NO WAY that they can admit that the whole thing is a crock so, as the evidence turns against them, they ratchet up the hysteria to keep those research dollars flowing. And it works. "More research is needed" has become the mantra of many politicians too.

But it leaves the average person totally betrayed. Attention-seeking medical scientists have led him towards useless lifestyle changes that may even harm him and attention-seeking climate scientists have led him to support political programs that will certainly impoverish him. So dishonest science is in fact a far greater evil than the rather wacky tribe of kneejerk nature-lovers.

Clinging to disproven theories is also rampant in my own field of academic specialization -- psychology -- but, fortunately, nobody takes much notice of psychologists.
http://john-ray.blogspot.com/

[muppet]

Agree, agree, agree ... and I know a lot of others do to ... but it's unpopular to empower the herd ... the wealthy big wigs prefer that they stay ignorant ... as long as they are ignorant, they remain financial prey. Good for you, for writing about it .... every little bit helps.

Edited by muppet, 15 May 2007 - 11:14 AM.

[maineman]

You are entirely right. Science is manure. Polio has not been cured. Penicillin does not exist. Cancer has not been cured. Heart disease has not been conquered. Surgical skills are not better. Cataracts are not fixed. Glaucoma is not cured. Asthma is not treated. Brain tumors are not repaired. Parasites are not eradicated. Hip and knee replacements do not exist. Hepatits vaccines are not real. Measles, mumps rubella still kill all the kids all the time. There is no cure or vaccines. People with HIV have no hope, there is no treatment. Hernias don't get repaired. Smoking is safe for you. People aren't really living longer... that data is false.... People who are cured from breast cancer and Hodgkins lymphoma are all liars. And..... A glass of oranje juice is worse for you than a fatty steak. And the world is flat. And 6000 years old.

[muppet]

We love you, mainman ... keep 'em comin. Everyone is entitled to an opinion ... even "MAIN" men.

[EntropyModel]

Why is so much mainstream "science" bogus?

$$$$.....power...ego....status...the usual.

Science usurped religion in its role of 'explainer of the unexplainable for the masses', and with that comes power/status/ego/$$$.

Scientific method is the pinacle of human logic achieved through 3000+ years of evolution of thought from the greatest thinkers. It proved it worth by moving mankind out of the pre-enlightenment dark ages, it produced the greatest representation of that logic in the American constitution, which was a direct result of the English enlightment movement, and the results of that is the great nation of America, just look at nations of the world who reject scientific thinking and how they fare.

So, lets not blame 'science' and fall prey to the backward thinking of anti-science crowd who would return us to the dark ages. The blame is squarely with human nature as it always is. If mankind could be given a list of 'absolute truths' by a 'God' , its certain the first one would read 'man will distort all these truths for his own gain'.

Mark.

Edited by entropy, 17 May 2007 - 12:10 AM.

[muppet]

Why is so much mainstream "science" bogus?

$$$$.....power...ego....status...the usual.

Science usurped religion in its role of 'explainer of the unexplainable for the masses', and with that comes power/status/ego/$$$.

Scientific method is the pinacle of human logic achieved through 3000+ years of evolution of thought from the greatest thinkers. It proved it worth by moving mankind out of the pre-enlightenment dark ages, it produced the greatest representation of that logic in the American constitution, which was a direct result of the English enlightment movement, and the results of that is the great nation of America, just look at nations of the world who reject scientific thinking and how they fare.

So, lets not blame 'science' and fall prey to the backward thinking of anti-science crowd who would return us to the dark ages. The blame is squarely with human nature as it always is. If mankind could be given a list of 'absolute truths' by a 'God' , its certain the first one would read 'man will distort all these truths for his own gain'.

Mark.

Yes, I agree and believe, wholeheartedly, in the scientific process. I believe in well designed scientific studies ... how else can we make reasonable progress? But, as you say, "power, money and status" too often misuse and abuse this valuable method ... for disreputable gain. It will never change. The only answer is education. At least Bill Gates is spending some money on creative and motivating methods of education ... and on promoting SCIENCE. So, maybe there is hope. The internet also helps to empower the masses.

[OEXCHAOS]

Guys, Health and Sanity Board thought his may be, we're getting into religion. No good can come of that. It's a hot button, and largely unresolvable. In fact, I'm going to prudently make a few posts invisible here. It has nothing whatsoever to do with my or anyone else's beliefs, but rather what it takes to keep the board civil. I hope you guys understand... Mark

[maineman]

Its the elephant in the living room. Our fear of discussing this lead weight has enabled those who are leading us away from truth, logic, science and rational thought. They win. The rest of us lose. It's your board and I respect your decision, but be careful... honest talk about hard issues may be difficult, but that doesn't mean it isn't necessary. mm

[Rogerdodger]

I could bring you all to your knees crying if I told you the truth.

[img]http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:fN2gdh359es3uM:http://static.firedoglake.com/2006/05/img_fewgoodmen.jpg[/img]
But you can't handle the truth!



Or as he said to me:
I like all you Navy boys. Every time we gotta go some place to fight, you give us a ride. ...

Edited by Rogerdodger, 17 May 2007 - 09:16 PM.

[SemiBizz]

Science always has an agenda. The basics of hypothesis. Science takes funding, all funding has a purpose in mind. It's project driven work in a lot of cases with careful management and budget monitoring with the parameters of measurement being supplied by the funder.