This morning, thanks to a link provided by a Facebook friend, I read an “Atlantic” article (see http://tinyurl.com/35fe5kb) that didn’t entirely surprise me but, well, provided some fodder for reflection…
Upon finishing the article, my first thought was: could this provide an answer to the questions that Art asks in the comments that he left on my recent “dietary fish oil” post? Namely, why did the fish oil researchers use such an unusual ratio of DHA/EPA in their mouse study? What is the point, since that particular ratio is not commercially available? Why didn’t they use an EPA/DHA ratio that comes close to what we, fish oil consumers, can buy? Very odd. For the moment, though, until we know more, those questions remain unanswered.
Let’s have a look at a few interesting quotes from the “Atlantic” article: “Randomized controlled trials,” which compare how one group responds to a treatment against how an identical group fares without the treatment, had long been considered nearly unshakable evidence, but they, too, ended up being wrong some of the time. “I realized even our gold-standard research had a lot of problems,” he says. Baffled, he started looking for the specific ways in which studies were going wrong. And before long he discovered that the range of errors being committed was astonishing: from what questions researchers posed, to how they set up the studies, to which patients they recruited for the studies, to which measurements they took, to how they analyzed the data, to how they presented their results, to how particular studies came to be published in medical journals.
The “he” mentioned in the above paragraph is Prof. John Ioannidis, one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He found that 80% of non-randomized controlled trials, and as much as 20% of randomized trials, are wrong!
Oh, but this sentence struck a chord with me: We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it’s easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously.
It reminded me of a very peculiar and quite awkward attempt (http://tinyurl.com/ygl775x) by a group of Belgian researchers to scare people diagnosed with MGUS from using curcumin. They write that curcumin inhibits IL-12, which plays a central role in protecting us against pathogens and tumors. The central part of their argument is based on one, and only ONE!, case…the case of a man with all sorts of ailments…their conclusion was so full of holes that it looked more like a lump of Swiss cheese than anything else… Anyway, I reported about that “study” in March 2010, so I don’t need to repeat what I have already written: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/2010/03/30/brussels-sprouts-instead-of-broccoli-part-2/
A few days after publishing that post, a light bulb went off in my head. I checked the effect that some of the drugs used in conventional myeloma treatment have on IL-12. Well, lo and behold!, I found that all of them, from Velcade to thalidomide, inhibit IL-12. So why aren’t scientists and researchers all over the world getting all upset about that, eh? The obvious answer still makes me seethe with anger…By the way, here is the link to my third (and final) scathing post: http://margaret.healthblogs.org/2010/04/01/about-to-leave-for-rome%e2%80%a6and-a-few-random-thoughts%e2%80%a6/.
This proves the point made in the “Atlantic” article–that researchers can manipulate and use data for their own purposes. In this particular case, this group of Belgian researchers conveniently “forgot” that–every single day, all over the world–thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of myeloma patients receive drugs that inhibit IL-12 undoubtedly in a much more stronger manner than curcumin (which is not a drug)…
Again, I quote Prof. Ioannidis: “Science is a noble endeavor, but it’s also a low-yield endeavor,” he says. “I’m not sure that more than a very small percentage of medical research is ever likely to lead to major improvements in clinical outcomes and quality of life. We should be very comfortable with that fact.” Comfortable??? I find it shocking…absolutely shocking…
All current business systems are based on generating revenue. One of them allopathic medical industry operates the same way. They focused on most profitable parts including specific new patentable chemicals. Oncology research has almost no choice but looking for next blockbuster drugs. Otherwise they will collapse. Application of other substances containing non cancer medications already patented is not economically viable proposition for long expensive study, particularly phase three and four. Since current strategy generates most income, allopathic system can also afford to suppress competition on many levels… Modifying this dynamic to more altruistic, compassion based approach, not only in medicine, requires different priorities for those who control fiat money… If the change is even possible at the current time are they ready to consider?
Peter 06
Peter’s absolutely right on a statistical level,I mean oncological resarch taken as a whole , but can it be different when you come down the individual searcher? Think about …maybe, Aggarwal’studies…before the nanoparticles business ? Shouldn’t the fields of research used to understand traditional medicines instead of only promoting Big Pharma’s interests ? Because in that case, you have hundreds’ years longitudinal studies for free! and no need for phase I or 2, they were completed 1000 years ago. OK, there is still the problem of who is financing what, I agree! but it makes me feel terrible to understand the logic of business when applied to the life and death of humans. And, come to think of it, some people did get money to see if prayers were/weren’t useful in case of heart surgery…
And what about the patients’ own responsibility ? don’t you think that if more patients were resorting to curcumin and the like,pulling information instead of having s.o.else push it to them if more were rejecting heavy expensive treatment, then the medical business system might change their ways since fewer people would consider entering the clinical trials for synthetic drugs with their load of side effects, and fewer would go for them outside trials…
oh well …just day dreaming on a rainy afternoon…
To Nail:
Some institutions, like MD Anderson, attract specific group of patients sensitive to “natural,” traditional staff. Others are looking for potential pro drugs in all ecosystems. They obviously try to understand how the nature operates. This is just part of the business. At the present time we have so many particles displaying promising properties that there is no desire and capacity left to bother much evaluating non patentable matter in a wider scale. In my opinion, allopathic medicine will remain focused on what is currently doing for a long time. On the other hand competition for rapidly diminishing earth resources, degradation of natural environment, with still increasing population forces to look by many on humans as pollutants, pests…
Will to survive, imbedded in all leaving organisms, definitely pushes people to look independently for any prospective some times irrational options. Expensive treatments will always be a part in desperate situations proportional only to means.
Looking for a miracle particle represents only fraction of the potential solutions. Changing the internal environment of the niche may be even more important by pushing the evolution of genetically change clones to cooperation rather then competition, prolonging plateau phase. Retrospective analysis of food, live style, supplements, and other elements of 15-20 years cancer survivors, in my opinion, may confirm already recognized factors and put a light on currently unknown additional aspects. Study of real survivors not culture, or different animal models may be even more important, but will not generate money…
Who will do that in organized fashion and will share results I have no idea…
Peter 06