Next time your Doctor tries to fob you off with cheapskate treatment, by citing medical research, try citing this article right back. This is the view of a top medical research scientist , who is one of the worlds most respected authorities on the validity of medical research.
theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/8269
hmm, the Atlantic magazine, that well known peer reviewed medical journal.
Generally, I find it more useful to view my doctor as a knowledgable partner in my care rather than the enemy. Of course some medical research is flawed, but the continued development of evidence based medicine, with groups such as the Cochrane collaboration undertaking systematic reviews on many different treatments, means that what evidence there is becoming more reliable.
Best wishes,
nicky
Hi India, maybe you should try reading the article first., the guy is a Harvard Professor after all, and one of the worlds leading experts on scientific research.
I think we would all like to work in partnership with out doctors, but most of us know that the medical profession have managers, and PCT accountants leaning on them to cut costs. When a Doctor say’s for example that research suggests less is more when it comes to treating metastatic cancer, what they generally mean is less is cheaper. The reality is that more treatment equals longer survival - which is why the US survival rate is so much better than ours.
And who says (note, not “say’s”) he is a “top medical research scientist , who is one of the worlds most respected authorities on the validity of medical research” apart from this article?
Perhaps a degree of healthy scepticism should be applied here?
here is some information about Dr/Proff Ioannidis.
160.109.101.132/icrhps/faculty/facultypages/IoannidisJohnPA.asp
and why the (note,not say’s)remark
Melxx
The problem is Dr Ioannidis’s study also suffers from its own particular bias. Important as medical science is, it is not the be-all and end-all of research. The physical sciences, with more certain theoretical foundations and well-defined methods and endpoints, probably do better than medicine .Still, he makes a good point.
Which leaves just one question though, is there a less than even chance that Dr Iaonnidis’s paper itself is wrong?
Hmmmm This interview below with Dr Ioannidis’s may just answer that question.
onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/11/21/07
Linda
Ben Goldman, in his book “Bad Science” explores this topic in a very easy to read manner. It is a fascinating read. For all those who are interested in internet research for cancer, this book is an excellent. It helps inject a healthy bit of cynicism and reality into big pharma companies, nutritionists claims and miracle cures.
Very interesting article and thanks for posting this. Nothing in this article surprises me having worked in the field of research and policy for many years. I think there are popular misconceptions about research but at the same time it is usually better than nothing. Research has given us a good understanding of many illnesses and treatments and it’s important not to forget that too.
Research funding is a huge issue. It does often come with bias. I was asked by funders of one piece of research to rewrite a whole 500 page report because they weren’t happy with the negative findings. It was a very factual report and I didn’t put bias in but I had to make it seem more ‘positive’ bias or they wouldn’t agree to publish.
In terms of treatment, personally I like to know the rationale behind all of it. When I do I feel more confident. If anyone has an oncologist or surgeon who isn’t forthcoming don’t hesitate to ask. Also don’t be afraid to ask how reliable the research is.
Oops, I meant to write 50 page report !
Also to add, that although there are negatives with funding at least it does get some research done. There are areas of health where money isn’t to be made that just don’t get researched much at all.
Gretchen I liked Ben Goldacre’s book too - he is hilarious on things like homeopathy and Gillian McKeith.
Linda - your post was a quote. It’s normal net etiquette to attribute quotes or provide a link - there are copy write issues.
I think the point I was trying to make is that if someone tries to tell you that such and such is ‘proven’, you should not only take it with a pinch of salt, but also apply critical thinking, even epistemology to the evidence.
I read another article ( I will try and dig out the details, unless someone knows of it), that said only around 20% of treatment is backed by medical evidence, and that mostly doctors treat patients according to experience, personal preference, custom, and what is available in their particular hospital. If on top of that, you accept Prof. Ionnidis view, then it seems possibe that even of the 20% that is evidenced, 90% of that is flawed (even so called gold standard research).
Lindiloo, as I understand the article, Professor Ioannidis was referring to medical research (even so called gold standard medical research). I agree that his opinion could be flawed, because all research can be flawed (that’s my point). I also think the link to the interview you provided was quite interesting, but I don’t think he gave an amazing explanation. I agree with him that scientists frequently race to get published, because it helps them to get further funding. I also appreciate that in order to get published quickly they sometimes make short cuts, or jazz things up - but I don’t think that’s the whole story. There are also things like the issue of drug companies funding research, and the conflict of interest issue that brings.
Cheshire Cheese, I agree we should be skeptical. By the way, sorry if I put my apostrophe in the wrong place - don’t think that makes my view any less worthy of consideration (my doctor can barely write his name, but I still respect his view).
Elinda, thanks for giving such a good example of how research can be skewed.
Gretchen, thanks for details of the book, can’t wait to read it - sounds a hoot.
Finty, Realy sorry i should have made that clear , but thought it was obvious to the reader by the way it was written, It’s also normal net etiquette when using a forum to be respectfull to others who have posted, you yourself have posted many internet articles and material without copy write permission . Please lets not turn another debate into an unpleasant one.
Linda put in her place again!
Hi Linda - it’s not a question of getting copy write permission - the “fair use” doctrine allows quoting from articles, the usual convention is a 4 paragraph limit. It’s just that it should always be presented as a quote or made clear in some other way that it is someone else’s words. I’m sure in this instance it doesn’t matter at all, but some website’s have got into a lot of trouble by posting unattributed work - just depends who the original author was.
Dont take any notice Linda. This site is getting ridiculous.
A small minority are spoiling things by their aggressive attitude.
I dont take any notice Julie,i find it hilarious actualy ,very nearly choked on my coffee while falling off my chair laughing ,oh dear… but i do agree this site is getting ridiculous!
x
Of course I read the article before commenting on it. I just wanted to point out that it contains no references or examples to back up it’s assertions. I am also a big fan of Ben Goldacre’s writing-well researched and clear.
The other point I wanted to make is that the " best" treatment is not always the most aggressive or most expensive. For example, cabecitobene, a relatively old and inexpensive treatment with usually not a bad side effect profile can be a very good treatment for secondaries.
UK doctors of course are constrained by PCT budgets etc, but in the US they are at the mercy of big pharma and the insurance companies: you only get good treatment if you can pay for it. May be this is why African American women are 37% more likely to die from breast cancer than White American women- less access to screening, lower socio-economic group and less health insurance(source American Cancer society 2006)
Nicky
I’m not very good at puting things in writing,I have it in my head and understand it all but thats as far as it gets.I shouldn’t worry linda,I often post quotes and I haven’t had the internet police around yet.sometimes I avoid writing anything because of fear of being ridiculed by some on here.
Very uncalled for 
Melxx
I agree with Flinty, if the bulk of your thread is a quote it really should be in quotation marks, especially if the comments are critiquing an esteemed medical researcher’s finding. I think it is a perfectly acceptable request.
Why,what will happen,is it really a problem,I dont see that it is.Or is it just that some know exactly what they are doing and want to nit pick and will find anything and go out of their way to get at another poster.