Comments on: Medical Study: Don’t Trust Medical Studies

By: Grewgills

Grewgills — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:31:36 +0000

The headline is misleading. The study did not address (at least not in the freely available sections) the validity or lack thereof of medical studies. It addressed medical guidelines not having sufficient grounding in medical studies. That is the guidelines are not based on the available studies or there are insufficient studies in areas where these guidelines are being written. These are separate and distinct issues.

A potential issue in guidelines may be level of confidence. Are they issuing guidelines because there were some apparent trends in studies that were not statistically significant? (ex/ alpha 0.08)

I’ve noted for years that the standards for publication in medical journals are far less rigorous than for publication in social science journals.

How is that possible?

The standards used in medical testing are quite rigorous and have resulted in phenomenal outcomes. I seriously doubt that one social science paper in a hundred meets the level of rigor in the typical medical trial.

By: ptfe

ptfe — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:29:24 +0000

Actually, I think James missed the point of the article. It doesn't say that the medical studies are passing along incorrect information, or that their conclusions are invented/bogus/untrustworthy, but that the guidelines which should be based on these studies are not following the empirical evidence. There's a huge difference between those two assertions. This has nothing to do with "standards for publication in medical journals", but rather with the ability of the organizations who should be utilizing study results to do so consistently and correctly.

By: Herb Ely

Herb Ely — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:13:24 +0000

So the most costly medical system in the world is based on inadequate guidelines. Are the guidelines in other countries any better - or just less expensive?

By: Nightly Ramble:The “Boy are we ever LOST” edition | BitsBlog

Nightly Ramble:The “Boy are we ever LOST” edition | BitsBlog — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 21:04:32 +0000

[...] Don’t trust studies: Over at OTB, James Joyner passes along word of a medical study done by the AMA, the conclusion of which, is, well… [...]

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 20:31:23 +0000

Doesn't that argument apply to "truth," Bit?

If you extend it that way, all of your positions fail the same test ... they would be implemented by fallible agents.

(I didn't think you were an absolute anarchist!)

By: Bithead

Bithead — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 19:12:26 +0000

Bit, do you understand the difference between statistical studies and physical models?

Of course. But I also understand you can't transfer massive amounts of wealth on the idea that what warmiong is corruing... or nowdays NOT occurring, is from the SUN. And it would appear without argument that both the WH and congress are all about transferring wealth to the government. The model as suggested by James article gives us a clear picture of how, through the use of governmental/corporate force, 'science' that isn't science at all, is accepted as unarguable fact. It works both in medicine, in which the government is getting increasingly involved, and in the myth of 'global warming', as well.

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 18:33:58 +0000

Bit, do you understand the difference between statistical studies and physical models? (We probably need to wrap our heads around Karl Popper, not an easy task, to understand the relative confidence we can have in such things.)

By: Bithead

Bithead — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 17:24:23 +0000

No, you may not.

(Chuckle) Too close to the truth?

By: Wayne

Wayne — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:42:43 +0000

But its science and science is always right.

Like I have said before, I a big believer in the scientific method. However when people treat it as a religion that is beyond questioning, I get irate, In addition it shows their ignorance.

By: Eric

Eric — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:47:51 +0000

...may I point to the increasingly draconian laws based on the supposedly scientific studies surrounding "global warming"?

No, you may not.

By: hcantrall

hcantrall — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 14:14:51 +0000

This is nice to know since my husband had malignant melanoma last year and opted to do just 30 days of high dose Interferon infusions as opposed to the recommended 30 days of high doses followed by a year of low dose self injections because of a couple of studies that we read claiming the year of self injections were not necessary.

The people who do these studies should realize that sometimes we're really counting on them to not pull information out of their asses and trust that no one in the medical/sciences field would be so irresponsible as to publish false information.

By: Bithead

Bithead — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:51:44 +0000

Now, here's something I'd like you to think about. Such studies often... heck... usually... end up influencing our healthcare by becoming a mandated treatment for insurnace purposes... or in the case of government healthcare, a law. You will follow their mandate, regardless of the whole thing being based on limited or non-existant scientific evidence. It's one way government getting between you and your doctor can ruin your health... for no good reason. Now, if you think it won't happen that way, may I point to the increasingly draconian laws based on the supposedly scientific studies surrounding "global warming"?

By: odograph

odograph — Wed, 04 Mar 2009 13:31:31 +0000

bene caca et irruma medicos (There is an older paper as well, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. It was covered at Marginal Revolution and Overcoming Bias, IIRC.