Print Topic - Archive

BTD Forums  /  Journal Club and Literature Review  /  Rethinking the Scientific Method
Posted by: Dr. D, Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 10:37pm
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/12/13/101213fa_fact_lehrer?currentPage=1
Posted by: Vivian, Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 10:50pm; Reply: 1
Interesting article...Thank you...
Posted by: TJ, Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 10:54pm; Reply: 2
"Jennions, similarly, argues that the decline effect is largely a product of publication bias, or the tendency of scientists and scientific journals to prefer positive data over null results, which is what happens when no effect is found."

Alas, there is no such thing as objectivity, in any endeavor in which humans play a role.
Posted by: Lola, Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 11:26pm; Reply: 3
:)still reading......thanks
Quoted Text
The test of replicability, as it’s known, is the foundation of modern research.


no one looks at the BT/GT connection when testing...... :-/
Posted by: san j, Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 11:32pm; Reply: 4
Interesting that in the field of psychotropic pharmacology you see this longitudinally in the treatment of a single given patient: The decline of effectiveness after a spectacularly successful initial result. This is so common now as to have become proverbial.

A friend is going through this with his own blood pressure meds: They "work", but only for a very short time. Likewise his daughter's neuro meds.

I do think that, with pharmaceuticals anyway, this has something to do with inadequate trials; Impatience to get the drug into the marketplace. Side effects kick in unexpectedly and may even cancel out the supposed benefits of the drugs.

Look at the statins. They lower cholesterol: Yeah. But cholesterol, it turns out, isn't all bad and is, for many, supercritical. They deplete CoQ10, so the patient with lowered cholesterol now has a dangerous arrhythmia.

Only TIME reveals these problems. I don't think we should see it as some "woo-woo" twilight zone blackhole-warp phenomenon, like a Bermuda Triangle. It's sheer commercial irresponsibility in many cases, which doesn't reflect badly on empiricism at all; rather it demands it.

My initial response anyway. $0.02. :)
Posted by: jayneeo, Tuesday, December 28, 2010, 11:53pm; Reply: 5
I guess truth has a short shelflife... ::)
Posted by: san j, Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 12:17am; Reply: 6
Quoted from jayneeo
I guess truth has a short shelflife... ::)


You mean you guess hastily patched together so-called truth?

Posted by: DoS, Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 12:41am; Reply: 7
I bet the rats on cocaine have different epigenetics!
Posted by: Goldie, Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 12:54am; Reply: 8
we are the rats.. we try anything so long as we don't have to take responsibility for it.  Ask to eat right and the world as we know it might collaps.. to many rats.. one following the other ..  
Posted by: Wholefoodie, Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 2:28pm; Reply: 9
Quoted Text
Alas, there is no such thing as objectivity, in any endeavor in which humans play a role.


So true, TJ!

Very interesting read.
Posted by: Monti, Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 2:54pm; Reply: 10
interesting read. My head hurts though! heheh
Posted by: AKArtlover, Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 4:07pm; Reply: 11
Quoted Text
subtle omissions and unconscious misperceptions

Our beliefs are a form of blindness.


The thought bubbled up after reading this--- Mind your beliefs; they will shape your destiny. ;)

I wonder about-- the influence of expectation on outcome, not just in the propensity for bias-- but in the actual influence of the the experiment outcomes. Often, we seem to get what we expect. When our expectations change, so do our outcomes. Frustration or fear of not producing something could have potential influence. There is something to be said for unbridled enthusiasm of a new endeavor-- "beginner's luck."

I like the idea of the unbiased plan, design, results database.

I also wonder on the rat experiment with the cocaine if there are geographical influences in location that affect physical outcomes. Not sure that much has been done in mainstream science with energy fields in the earth.  

The decline effect, well, hmmm. Interesting.

Me thinks it is in my best interest to hold the belief that my body and mind are getting more efficient and moving toward greater abundance of health, energy, and life. Whether the data supports that or not, making course adjustments is it's only purpose. The external serves the internal.?. ;D

Dr. D, it seems to me that part of your gift as a physician is not only what you know on a conscious level, but what you know on a unconscious level about your patients psyche. Some of what you said or didn't say on my second visit helped me in some way. Entrainment, perhaps.  

But then again, maybe I just knew what I was looking for at that point.  :)
Either way, thank you.

Great read, thanks. 8)
Posted by: Lola, Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 6:36pm; Reply: 12
Quoted Text
My head hurts though!


that s cause you were fucosylating big time!!! ;)
http://www.dadamo.com/B2blogs/blogs/index.php/2010/04/06/why-johnny-can-t-fucosylate?blog=24
Posted by: O in Virginia, Wednesday, December 29, 2010, 7:43pm; Reply: 13
I haven't read the whole thing yet (me wee pea brain also hurts), but my thought was that perhaps replicability appears to decline in relation to the expanding universe.  :B  How can anything be static and replicatable for long in a universe that doesn't stay put?
Posted by: Captain_Janeway, Thursday, December 30, 2010, 1:42am; Reply: 14
It's not the results that matters, what you LEARN from the results does. Repeated experiments under better tightly controlled conditions can be compared to a control group and will sometimes give different results from the original.  
Posted by: paul clucas, Thursday, December 30, 2010, 3:10am; Reply: 15
Apart from the final example from physics all the research mentioned was from the medical sciences.  You will note that there was not a single example of the decline effect in the physical sciences, which suggests that the lone experiment on gravity was thrown in for cover.  The initial claims for cold fusion did not suffer the decline effect - they could not be reproduced at all.  Clearly wishful thinking is alive and well in all the sciences, but the decline effect is a little complicated that that and a little more unevenly distributed.

They are trying to come to terms with the fact that the statistical model (which assumes a uni-modal i.e. normal distribution) is not sufficient to analyse the medical results.  The truth is that humans are not all built upon the same norms, which is why grouping people around blood type or Genotype works.  Bluntly, if the microscope is not used correctly, all the slides will be out of focus.  Here the microscope is the assumption of a single normal distribution for most medical facts - despite the evidence to the contrary!

Ask an allopathic researcher to use some model based on the assumption of polymorphism and they will not know where to start!  The allopaths are in danger of waking up to the insufficiency of their most trusted model.
Posted by: san j, Thursday, December 30, 2010, 5:23am; Reply: 16
Quoted from paul clucas
Apart from the final example from physics all the research mentioned was from the medical sciences.  You will note that there was not a single example of the decline effect in the physical sciences, which suggests that the lone experiment on gravity was thrown in for cover.  The initial claims for cold fusion did not suffer the decline effect - they could not be reproduced at all.  Clearly wishful thinking is alive and well in all the sciences, but the decline effect is a little complicated that that and a little more unevenly distributed.

They are trying to come to terms with the fact that the statistical model (which assumes a uni-modal i.e. normal distribution) is not sufficient to analyse the medical results.  The truth is that humans are not all built upon the same norms, which is why grouping people around blood type or Genotype works.  Bluntly, if the microscope is not used correctly, all the slides will be out of focus.  Here the microscope is the assumption of a single normal distribution for most medical facts - despite the evidence to the contrary!

Ask an allopathic researcher to use some model based on the assumption of polymorphism and they will not know where to start!  The allopaths are in danger of waking up to the insufficiency of their most trusted model.


Bravo, Paul. A man with a cogent Thinking function.
The fault indeed does not lie with the empiric method, but with faulty premises.
Dr. D'Adamo is the last person who can afford to ditch Scientific Method, which is what assures his own credibility in Medicine.  :)
Posted by: yaman, Thursday, December 30, 2010, 9:08am; Reply: 17
I always like to hear that "the king is naked" :)
Posted by: Lloyd, Thursday, December 30, 2010, 1:18pm; Reply: 18
All tools work best for the purpose they were designed for and when properly used.

Tools often don't work well when misapplied or incorrectly used.
Posted by: AKArtlover, Thursday, December 30, 2010, 1:26pm; Reply: 19
:)
Posted by: Lola, Thursday, December 30, 2010, 5:42pm; Reply: 20
then there are the ingenious, using the wrong tools for a right cause and get away with it, just fine!!! ;)
Posted by: AKArtlover, Thursday, December 30, 2010, 5:58pm; Reply: 21
:)
Posted by: TJ, Friday, December 31, 2010, 3:29am; Reply: 22
One of the more interesting points in the article is that the editors of the journals discriminate in which studies to publish.  If I understood correctly what the author was saying, early on there is a tendency to publish studies that support the original "breakthrough" study, to bolster the theory.  After the theory is accepted, the editors become more interested in articles that don't support the standing theory.

According to this idea, it isn't that the theory is losing it's truth, but rather that the truth isn't being reflected by the distribution of published journal articles.
Posted by: Dr. D, Saturday, January 8, 2011, 11:34am; Reply: 23
http://www.wired.com/medtech/drugs/magazine/17-09/ff_placebo_effect?currentPage=all
Posted by: RedLilac, Saturday, January 8, 2011, 2:36pm; Reply: 24
Mind over matter

I have to come back and read the whole article – you’re going to make me late for my Pilates class.
Posted by: Andrea AWsec, Saturday, January 8, 2011, 3:16pm; Reply: 25
Somehow your work at UB is connected to all this reading you are doing on the placebo effect and studies. I am waiting for the big reveal one day. :)

When I was a new nurse we had a patient with chronic pain. Everyone said she was nuts ( probably a nonnie with real complaints). I remember dosing her with saline injections rather then demerol. The doc had actually ordered saline. It worked, only making her pain less real to us all, and her more of a nut :-/.

  I was 20 or so at the time and had such limited experience with these things.

Now we are not allowed to do such things.. it would be considered unethical in a hospital setting, but I have been tempted. ;)
When the patient says to me, "Will that make me sleepy?" and I only have saline in the syringe, I so want to say... YES...
Posted by: AKArtlover, Saturday, January 8, 2011, 3:53pm; Reply: 26
Never underestimate the power of desire.

WWII, no anesthesia left for surguries-- put this mask on and it will make you sleepy. Worked for hundreds of English soldiers.
The mind is powerful.

All in the medical profession have the ability to influence profoundly with their words and state of mind. Most people are in a hypnotic state of trust in a doctors office. (Though I would venture a lot of people on this board are the more questioning type.)

Television is also a trance inducer. Interesting about the advertising, I thought there was something that had to be researched to that social model they are using.

Great article. A keeper.

Thanks. ;D
Posted by: AKArtlover, Saturday, January 8, 2011, 4:04pm; Reply: 27
Quoted from Andrea AWsec
When I was a new nurse we had a patient with chronic pain. Everyone said she was nuts ( probably a nonnie with real complaints). I remember dosing her with saline injections rather then demerol. The doc had actually ordered saline. It worked, only making her pain less real to us all, and her more of a nut :-/.



If there was a mental root to this issue, it would potentially come back in the same or another form unless she dealt with the source.

She also could have had real physical issues as you suggest, possibly brought on by the wrong foods, etc. In that case, from this article, my understanding was that she created a painkiller for herself. Not dealing with the underlying physical issues.

Then again, the inner physician might have several routes to wellness. Perhaps in the process (depending on desire and strength of suggestion) the mind can cause lifelong epigenetic changes on its own. Pondering that spirally off to offspring... hmmm.

Hypnotists aren't legally able to claim healing. Things I have seen and heard of... let's just say, the mind is extremely powerful.

Mind your beliefs, they will determine your destiny.

Fascinating.
Posted by: Lola, Saturday, January 8, 2011, 4:04pm; Reply: 28
eat right, live right, sup right......that s the secret!! ;)

and think right!!
Posted by: AKArtlover, Saturday, January 8, 2011, 10:09pm; Reply: 29
;)
Posted by: san j, Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 3:04am; Reply: 30
See
http://www.dadamo.com/cgi-bin/Blah/Blah.pl?m-1294668784/

Thread above.
On "Dr. D'Adamo's new blog". So inspired he kept writing! :D
Posted by: san j, Tuesday, January 11, 2011, 3:21am; Reply: 31
Quoted from yaman
I always like to hear that "the king is naked" :)


We say emperor, which is even better. :)
Print page generated: Tuesday, November 25, 2014, 10:25pm