Why you shouldn't believe medical studies

I think this topic was discussed here before, but I felt compelled to bring it up again, as there have been some recent posts here on ATS that cited the trusted 'medical study'.

We've all seen it. Study 'A' says "Eggs are a super-food. Eat them every day." Study 'B' says: "Eggs are bad for you. If you must eat them, limit your intake to no more than 2 per week". And so forth and so on. My elderly uncle has seen 3 doctors. They all gave him TOTALLY conflicting advice on diet. At least one of the docs cited a medical study.

According to Medical Studies, everything we eat both causes and prevents cancer.



"More often than not, single studies contradict one another - such as the research on foods that cause or prevent cancer. The truth can be found somewhere in the totality of the research."

Most medical studies are wrong
In 2003, researchers writing in the American Journal of Medicine discovered something that should change how you think about medical news. They looked at 101 studies published in top scientific journals between 1979 and 1983 that claimed a new therapy or medical technology was very promising. Only five, they found out, made it to market within a decade. Only one (ACE inhibitors, a pharmaceutical drug) was still extensively used at the time of their publication.

Words of wisdom from the VOX article:
As we turn away from the magic pills and miracle treatments, I think we'll focus more on the things that actually matter to health — like education, equality, the environment.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Just like psychology, medical studies understand sickness, not health.

If you want to be healthy, avoid the science of sickness.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Yeah, frankly MDs have no requirements for nutrition in school, so they pretty much parrot whatever study their pharmaceutical rep uses to pitch the drug they buy and in turn pitch to Joe and Jane Shmoe.

That's tantamount to saying science is manipulated
You are in trouble

originally posted by: Raggedyman
That's tantamount to saying science is manipulated
You are in trouble

Uh oh! I might wind up on Bill Nye's poopie list.

a reply to: ColeYounger

I think a way fairer title would be

"why you shouldn't ALWAYS believe medical studies.."

We shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water...

I think Neil degrading Tyson described it best when he as refering to conspiracy theories..


If you find out that a study or group of studies is fake. Is the logical conclusion from that data that there is a vast conspiracy to poison our children through vaccinations????

Nope..

There are a thousand steps on the ladder between one and the other..

Every bit of good science out modern medicine has come from studies too..

Popping in to say, "some" studies while interesting unless you actually READ the abstract are both misunderstood or it turns out not enough subjects were used to give a definitive answer EITHER WAY!

Yeah, know, reading science abstracts is fairly mid numbing, but you can't rely on the news blurbs.

Beating up on the pharma companies or how funding is procured is wasted breath. We know the game and are quite free to ignore it. Whining about it got annoying years ago. Don't like GMO? Do't purchase those products, don't want to line drug companies pockets? Learn about alternatives.

Most importantly READ THE ABSTRACTS!!!
Every paper has a paragraph or two outlining the study, an overview and each study is conducted with strict parameters that may or may not apply to what you are assuming from news reports.

an yes, I fully expect this post to be soundly ignored, per normal.
Sheesh!

a reply to: Caver78

The problem as I see it (and the reason for the thread) is that the average person simply accepts these studies because they see it coming from an authority. (Science, the medical establishment, academia/STEM, etc)

Often, what is given to the public is the newspaper or evening news version of the study. The fear-mongering version.
ie: Eggs will kill you! It's frightening how people blindly accept what they see or hear from the media.

"They must find it difficult, those that take authority as truth, instead of truth as the authority"

What I have found personally, is that you are correct, medical studies/experiments are wrong nearly 100% of the time.

The reason as I've noticed, is with the conductors of the study, not the data. Data, raw numbers and experiment writings contain extremely factual data. The entire issue lies in who is conducting the experiments, who is writing the article, and (at times) who is paying them to do so.

in regards to articles published in scientific journals, nearly every one is biased to an extent. Questionable data that doesn't fit with their models is either adjusted or thrown out, with a fabricated reason why, as to an actual investigation of the abnormal information. Often times too, ideas that would seem common sense and reflected of experimental data collected can (and will) be contorted to whatever viewpoint they wish to see as the end result.

It's pretty much an issue that lies within the entire scientific community, where it's followed practically as a religion; a religion in more ways than one, as you state in the OP: multiple tests showing multiple results..... simply choose the one you feel most comfortable with. That is the correct one, and everyone else is an idiot for thinking otherwise

a reply to: ColeYounger

Your uncle should see a nutritionist, not a doctor

And as with ANY science, one must seek out multiple angles of the same topic in order to get a total view of things. Like with eggs--I'll eat them when I want to, won't when I don't. Same with fried foods, sodas, and whatever. I'm not obese, I am on zero daily medications (barring my asthma steroid inhaler), and I always get a clean bill of health internally.

Yes, I could latch on to every recent study and follow it to the letter and believe everything that it says, but there's no point. Everything in moderation is the best policy, unless you're eating paint chips from a home painted in the 60s.

ETA:

originally posted by: ColeYounger
a reply to: Caver78

The problem as I see it (and the reason for the thread) is that the average person simply accepts these studies because they see it coming from an authority. (Science, the medical establishment, academia/STEM, etc)

Bingo

originally posted by: Shuye
a reply to: ColeYounger

Just like psychology, medical studies understand sickness, not health.

If you want to be healthy, avoid the science of sickness.

Exactly! From what I've seen in recent decades, the goal of medicine is for as many people to be diagnosed with a medical condition as possible.

"If you have had a runny nose in the past year, see your doctor. It could be serious!"

The Motivation? = $$$$

a reply to: Raggedyman

Science is manipulated.

a reply to: ColeYounger

Exactly, the OP's pieces done based on a medical study are based on sound bites. It's a bit of a PITA to dig up the original paper and at least skim it, but at this point we have to or risk staying bamboozled.

I lived thru
Tang the miracle drink!
Koolaide a refreshing treat
Butter was the devil incarnate, oh WAIT! Margarine will kill you!!
Hawaiian Spam, Spam lasagna, Hamberger Helper, Twinkies
Powdered milk, FFS!!!!
and of course the great Egg Debacle!!

Now it's Detoxing, clean eating, paleo diet ect....

It's apparently ALL marketing. Twisted and wrapped up in fear-mongering.

a reply to: carewemust

And why aren't we holding the consumer to the same standard? Just because someone says to jump off a bridge doesn't mean you run out and do it.

Just because a Ad tells you you NEED to see a Doc doesn't mean you need too.

Home doctoring never went out of style for us po'folk. Got the sniffles? Here's a kleenex! Got a 104 sustained temp, ok, we're making that call. You can't really blame the advertisers for our lack of brains.

I agree with you on most points you make, big pharma stacks the deck in it's favor, but doesn't every business? It's our job to cut thru the crap and choose wisely. Don't you think?

originally posted by: dothedew
What I have found personally, is that you are correct, medical studies/experiments are wrong nearly 100% of the time.

The reason as I've noticed, is with the conductors of the study, not the data. Data, raw numbers and experiment writings contain extremely factual data. The entire issue lies in who is conducting the experiments, who is writing the article, and (at times) who is paying them to do so.

in regards to articles published in scientific journals, nearly every one is biased to an extent. Questionable data that doesn't fit with their models is either adjusted or thrown out, with a fabricated reason why, as to an actual investigation of the abnormal information. Often times too, ideas that would seem common sense and reflected of experimental data collected can (and will) be contorted to whatever viewpoint they wish to see as the end result.

It's pretty much an issue that lies within the entire scientific community, where it's followed practically as a religion; a religion in more ways than one, as you state in the OP: multiple tests showing multiple results..... simply choose the one you feel most comfortable with. That is the correct one, and everyone else is an idiot for thinking otherwise

I would flag the heck out of this if I was able!!!
Great response!

a reply to: ColeYounger

I can a agree with you 50-50. If there are no...or were no...medical studies.....what and where would the info pro or con be produced? By dead people?

Think about it. Oh I do see your point...but studies are about all we have except personal testimonies...but patients cant go by "it worked for me...try this...".

We'd have a ton of dead people from cutting this, adding that, starting this, stopping that, do this, dont do that's.

a reply to: Caver78

a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Often in scientific studies, the ones proving a point for a product or an idea, I believe will be made marketable based upon their findings. And I also believe such studies are also such a product, as they are likely to be ordered from different interest groups that aim to market such an idea or product.

Science is good based upong its own principle. It's not so good when interest groups get involved, and influences science by skewing the scientific method in order to match their needs.