Health Studies Are Worthless to Those Who Care About Health (Blog)

[Savage]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Health Studies Are Worthless to Those Who Care About Health

[Light]

Quick note: There's a typo in the third paragraph. It says "really" instead of "rely".

I liked the usage of Mark Twain quotes. Classy.

Originally Posted by Mark Twain

Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society.

[Savage]

Thanks... typo fixed.

[Jontillman.com]

Such a provocative statement makes me wonder two things:

1) What is the agenda of whoever it is at wikipedia that wrote the medical errors article, specifically, are they part of the wikipedia clique that Jaron Lanier (correctly) accuses of digital Maoism and hatred of any kind of "authority" whether it be right or wrong?
2) What is your agenda in writing this article?

I am also interested that in the list of dismissals you packed into the first section that you did not point the finger at academics. Was that an oversight, or should we ignore such sources as the Mount Sinai School of Medicine as well?

We do live in an era of data that has been wrongly labeled as an information age, but whether it be information, or the less useful data that we are inundated with, knowledge still consists of being able to discern what is useful in it, and wholesale rejection is not discernment.

[Keith]

Steve, you forgot reason #5 (though I'd make it reason #1) for not relying on scientific health studies - they really mess with your head! There's so much (often contradictory) information floating around out there that, if you rely on it, you get trapped in a perpetual aim, aim, aim, aim...

P.S. Jontillman, Wikipedia is far from the only source for the rates of harm from medical errors. If you don't trust second-hand sources, just look at the number of successful malpractice suits.

[KeithHandy]

Not too long ago, locally, there was a huge full-page front-page newspaper story about Soy not being so healthy after all. It was constructed in such a way -- I wish I could remember the exact headline -- that it would give the person glancing at it casually the impression that there were possibly some serious reasons to avoid soy, that it might in fact be dangerous.

Upon reading the article, there was hardly any information whatsoever in it, except that possibly some claims about its health benefits had been exaggerated.

Somebody obviously had an ulterior motive for that one! It made me quite angry, too, because I couldn't imagine most people actually reading it to see how little it had to say, and I'm sure that was the intention.

[Andrew Brunelle]

If what you're eating feels right, then eat it. There's nothing wrong with eating an apple or an orange or broccoli. Unprocessed foods are easy to figure out that they have health benefits. It's all the overprocessed junk you have to worry about. And soy is not very good for you, but I never really liked it anyway.

[pkchukiss]

Steve, the reason for the deaths is blatantly obvious when you see that people always refer to medicine as a "practice".

Why do we think doctors call themselves a "medicine practitioner"?

Just joking

[Savage]

Originally Posted by Jontillman.com

2) What is your agenda in writing this article?

To honor the memory of Mark Twain.

[Chris Anthony]

Steve, I'm a little disappointed in this essay, to be honest. What you seem to be saying is "it's too hard to tell the worthwhile studies from the studies that are powered by bias and agenda, so I'm not going to bother differentiating and just scotch the lot", and I don't really think that's a useful way to think about the subject. There's genuine, worthwhile research going on in all sorts of areas - but it gets misrepresented by the press, and it is hard to tell the actual research from the agenda-driven research unless you know what you're looking for.

For instance, you might see, say, a headline or a popular book that says "smoking is bad for you!", and at this point the largely correct response is to say "well, duh". But that doesn't mean that there isn't value in the continued study of the effects of smoking tobacco (and other drugs), and that doesn't mean that that's what the studies actually say. It might well be that the study actually correlated the use of drugs, including smoking tobacco, with increasingly anti-social behavior (as did a study I co-authored a few years ago) - but the author of the article about the study probably isn't getting or registering all of the detail. He just knows that yet another group of doctors is saying that smoking has bad effects. Just as KeithHandy points out, the press misrepresents the actual findings all the time, because the people who are reporting the findings in the press very often don't actually understand what the findings mean - they're trained as journalists, not epidemiologists.

That's not to say that there aren't some facile studies out there - but the facile studies usually are the ones funded and led by someone with an agenda. Unfortunately, it's often hard to tell who's being funded by what agency unless you read the full text of the study itself; most journals require the authors of a paper to disclose the source of their funding. Even then, it can be difficult, because you run into a "which came first?" problem - did the source ask the investigators to run a study, or did the investigators get an idea for a study and ask for funding? Unfortunately, there isn't a good way to determine that, although you can often tell from the wording of the study. (If the study presents the findings as a fait accompli, for example, you can be pretty sure that there's an agenda in play.)

Anyway. The point I'm trying to make is that by dismissing all health studies as worthless, you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If you're okay with that, then go for it - but I suspect that you of all people appreciate the wisdom in knowing what you're throwing away. :)

Two more comments. First, I'm currently participating in an investigation concerning the relationship between medical error and injury or death in the severely mentally ill (specifically, misdiagnosis because of the mental illness). If you'd like, I'll point you to the article when we get it published. :)

Second, your comment about the auto mechanic seems a little off to me. If a human being had designed my body, I'd expect my doctor to be able to say "yeah, I know what that is" every time. ;) But in all honesty, we really don't know everything there is to know about how and why people work, whereas we really do know how and why cars work, so comparing a doctor to an auto mechanic isn't really fair. ;) (Then again, I've had experiences with mechanics who made really serious errors - like the guy who replaced my alternator belt and then forgot to bolt the alternator back onto the rest of the engine...)

[Kiba]

Originally Posted by Jontillman.com

Such a provocative statement makes me wonder two things:

1) What is the agenda of whoever it is at wikipedia that wrote the medical errors article, specifically, are they part of the wikipedia clique that Jaron Lanier (correctly) accuses of digital Maoism and hatred of any kind of "authority" whether it be right or wrong?
2) What is your agenda in writing this article?

What in the world are you talking about? What is "digital maoism"?

[munish]

Chris,

All power comes from within and If we dont raise our level of consciousness ,we will remain where we are. Even medicine or health foods may not help us.

HunaTrainer.com - Rediscover Ancient Wisdom » HunaTrainer.Com 030 - All power comes from within
HunaTrainer.com - Rediscover Ancient Wisdom » HunaTrainer.Com 030 - All power comes from within

[SifuPhil]

Originally Posted by Chris Anthony

...whereas we really do know how and why cars work, so comparing a doctor to an auto mechanic isn't really fair.

Chris -

As with the human body, we may understand the theory of operation, but when it breaks down the diagnostics are key. If you simply treat the symptoms you're just doing superficial healing (or repair).

A car should operate in a certain manner, just as a human being should. Just like cars, humans display a bewildering tendency to break the mold and act in ways that seem to fly in the face of our reasoned knowledge. I've owned cars that only started when you banged the glove-box door. There was no scientific reason at all that this should have occured, but it did.

Likewise, doctors (of both species - Traditionalus and Holisticus) are faced with a diagnostic logic-tree of staggering proportions. Just like that auto mechanic, they pick the most likely cause and treat for that, then sit back, play a round of golf , and see what happens.

Or, as Steve's excellent article seems to have implied, they throw pharmaceuticals at you until you're either too doped up to feel anything or you complain, at which point a different (and usually stronger) med is prescribed.

Originally Posted by Kiba

What in the world are you talking about? What is "digital maoism"?

Isn't that when they take pictures of cats with a 5-megapixel camera?

[ahimel]

Originally Posted by Chris Anthony

Second, your comment about the auto mechanic seems a little off to me. If a human being had designed my body, I'd expect my doctor to be able to say "yeah, I know what that is" every time. But in all honesty, we really don't know everything there is to know about how and why people work, whereas we really do know how and why cars work, so comparing a doctor to an auto mechanic isn't really fair.

A heart surgeon takes her car in to get the oil changed and her annual tune-up. She's standing, watching the mechanic finish up, when the mechanic suddenly says,
"Hey, you know, there's not that much difference between us. We both basically fix motors when they're not working. You have to disconnect the plumbing, correct the error in the main engine, and reconnect it. No big deal. So how come you get paid hundreds of thousands a year, and I'm barely scraping by?"
The surgeon replies, "Try doing it while the motor's running."

....


I was very pleased to see the title of this article this morning, since we've been having a discussion in the Health and Fitness forum about whether there's enough scientific evidence to prove that veganism is the correct health choice for everyone. I was hoping Steve would have good arguments that would be worth referencing/using.

And he does, especially the one about whether or not the same effects will be shown in a brown-haired, healthy-weight, short, active female in Colorado. But after reading Cron's rebuttal, I have to agree that Steve overstated the case a bit. (Of course, I know that he creates his post titles to attract maximum attention on search engines. It's possible that he doesn't think they're "worthless" but that "not nearly as useful as you think they are, and in many cases may actually be harmful" didn't make a very snappy headline.) I think a better title would have been Media reporting of health studies are worthless to those who care about health.

The problem with Cron's solution, of course, is that most of us aren't trained to read a health study. I have a very firm basis in mathematics, so I can at least recognize a "every time we did this, that happened" study as compared to a "rumour of a focus group, who might have said something which, taken out of context, could imply that you're not becoming a weasel" study.

But suppose I read a study whose data clearly shows that consumption of animal protein slows dephosphorylation...
I can't even tell if that's an argument for vegetarianism or omnivorism, much less whether their data collection methods were valid and analysis of the data supports the written conclusion.

The solution to this problem is left as an exercise for the student.

Weasel quote shamelessly copied from Dilbert

[Chris Anthony]

Originally Posted by SifuPhil

A car should operate in a certain manner, just as a human being should. Just like cars, humans display a bewildering tendency to break the mold and act in ways that seem to fly in the face of our reasoned knowledge. I've owned cars that only started when you banged the glove-box door. There was no scientific reason at all that this should have occured, but it did.

Well, with the significant caveat that there's much more differentiation among humans than there is among cars. Steve says: "How do we know the average trend will hold true for a male, blond-haired, blue-eyed, colorblind, non-smoking, left-handed, vegan, married father-of-two living in Las Vegas?" My reaction to that is to ask "And how do we know that what holds true for one male, blond-haired, blue-eyed, colorblind, non-smoking, left-handed, vegan, married father-of-two living in Las Vegas will hold true for another male, blond-haired, blue-eyed, colorblind, non-smoking, left-handed, vegan, married father-of-two living in Las Vegas?" (There's a whole branch of epidemiology that studies twins to see how similar and different they are.)

We are all individuals, which is why trustworthy doctors will put their statistics in terms of trends or tendencies, or at least provide confidence intervals for their statistics. (We also use clustering when we can - which is the principle that person A and person B have different influences in their lives, and thus will have different reactions to the stimuli.) We the data-analysts know full well that what works for person A isn't going to work for person B, but given a large enough sample size we can make predictions about what will tend to happen to the general populace.

Also, you say there was no scientific reason that the car wouldn't start unless you banged the glove-box door, but I think it's more accurate to say that you couldn't find a scientific reason why that should be so. (I can think of one off the top of my head - a short in the wiring leading to the glove-box light might be interfering with the starter mechanism. I had a car once with a trailer hitch that an enterprising electrician had managed to wire in serial - so when the (unused) trailer-hitch wiring developed a short, the whole lighting system disappeared, up to and including the dashboard lights...)

Originally Posted by SifuPhil

Likewise, doctors (of both species - Traditionalus and Holisticus) are faced with a diagnostic logic-tree of staggering proportions. Just like that auto mechanic, they pick the most likely cause and treat for that, then sit back, play a round of golf , and see what happens.

I'm well aware of that. (In fact, like I said, I'm involved in a study of what happens when medical professionals do get the diagnosis wrong.) The problem is that saying "doctors sometimes get it wrong, so we shouldn't trust what doctors say" is like saying "well, I didn't have any money come into my life today despite having the Million-Dollar intention, so the Million Dollar Experiment and intention-manifestation must be a bust". Neither is a really appropriate way to approach the world. The trick is - again, as I said - to figure out what you can trust, and trust that - and take everything else with a grain of salt.

(Wait, is salt bad for you this year?)

[infoworld]

I don't think *all* health studies are worthless. Steve makes some good points about conflicts of interest and hidden agendas. However, I don't think it's a good idea to "throw the baby out with the bathwater" by disregarding/condemning all health studies.

It's important to use discernment in life, and health studies are one area where discernment is especially helpful.

For example, the China Study was one of the biggest studies ever conducted on nutrition and longevity. I think more people should read about the China Study (there's a book) and understand the long-term implications of a meat-based diet.

Reading research studies (health studies) can help people acquire the information they need to make decisions about their health. However, I DO AGREE that a good dose of healthy skepticism and discernment is needed.

[Akashic_Librarian]

Ok ok. What has gotten in to everyone?

Steve is damn well correct here. I saw, within a space of a week a magazine say that one food would kill you and then a few days later, that that same food would save your life. I think ALL medical studies are NOT scientific because science is being able to repeat the same process over and over and get the same result. Now I would define Medicine as "Stupid" because the actual definition of stupid is:

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results...


Which is was what medicine does. The truth of the matter is people can heal themselves of anything. I would even dare say that AIDS or HIV was perhaps curable with the correct dedication to the LoA.

[tropicality]

I'd like to share this with ya:

The Town of Allopath

[Ibanez]

You should look for peer reviewed studies not just "studies" as some say.

Oh, nice Twain quotes, great writer and funny too.

Ah, I'll add one of my own twain quotes I like...

"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."
-- Mark Twain

[CAL]

The China Study is indead a powerful book. I highly recommend it.

Steve: I tend to agree with the spirit of what you are saying. But, I think we need to examine studies on a case by case basis. We should always inquire where the funding came from and who stands to benefit. Personally, I most mistrust the health reports called: "New Breakthrough!", which seem to appear nightly on the news networks.

[Erock]

Originally Posted by tropicality

I'd like to share this with ya:

The Town of Allopath

Haha funny video. That's 2 great sites in a row. By the way, thanks a lot for the energy work site. Much appreciated.

[escapee]

Health Studies Are Worthless to Those Who Care About Health

I cant say that it's completely useless because they are many ill-informed long/mid term vegan/vegetarian (like myself ) greatly benefited (or should i say "saved" ) by supplementation of B12 and B12 health studies. I tend to get really excited about latest studies related to cellular nutrition as i now believe a balance nutrition (lacking any of the important vitamin , mineral would generally throw your system out of whack) is the best defense against all sickness and possibly aging .

China Study predominantly whole food vegetarian diet with some supplementation ( B12 supplemention, B12 "enriched" product , Vitamin D during prolonged winter time ) is an effective proposition for optimal health.

[eastcoastgirl]

From Steve:
"Health magazines are owned by supplement makers. Drug companies sponsor TV news programs. People retire from the FDA to take up lucrative positions in the pharmaceutical industry, sometimes after owning stock in the companies whose drugs they were responsible for approving. I’m not suggesting every agenda is negative or evil… just that accuracy isn’t always the #1 concern."

I agree, accuracy isn't the # 1 concern. But please provide evidence that "People retire from the FDA to take up lucrative positions in the pharmaceutical industry, sometimes after owning stock in the companies whose drugs they were responsible for approving." If that's true, OK, but if you're going to make accusations, I want proof. Name your sources.

[escapee]

The articles of Big pharma scam are every where in the internet. That's why so many people are now heading towards nutritional/alternative approach as a preventive and corrective measure for various diseases .

I'd like to share this with ya:
The Town of Allopath

Great flash movie .. LOL ...

10 types of refined food you should avoid

[Chris Anthony]

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

What has gotten in to everyone?

That'd be my job, actually. Full disclosure: I'm a data analyst working for a doctor at the School of Medicine at Johns Hopkins University. I'm the guy who runs the numbers for the studies you're dismissing, and it's in my personal and professional interest to make sure that those numbers are as accurate as they can possibly be, regardless of what conclusion they support. The funding for our studies comes from the National Institutes of Health, and we are not beholden to them to produce particular results or to study particular subjects.

In other words, I really do know whereof I speak.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I saw, within a space of a week a magazine say that one food would kill you and then a few days later, that that same food would save your life.

But did you read the studies? That's my point in a nutshell - if you're going to dismiss medical studies based on their media coverage, then you're not actually saying anything about the studies, and you're doing a disservice to everybody involved in producing the study.

Originally Posted by Akashic_Librarian

I think ALL medical studies are NOT scientific because science is being able to repeat the same process over and over and get the same result. Now I would define Medicine as "Stupid" because the actual definition of stupid is:

Doing the same thing over and over and expecting the same results...

First off, I think you've got the joke backwards. The definition of stupid/insane is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

And, honestly, if two studies come out, one that says that Thing A is good for you and one that says that Thing A is bad for you, they're clearly not doing the same thing. In fact, the only similarities that can be assumed from that information are that a) they're both studies, and b) they're both looking at Thing A. Since they're drawing such wildly different conclusions, the reader has to assume that they're approaching the problem from different directions.

Let me throw out an example, just to illustrate the problem. Let's say that University of Lemuria puts out a study that says that Thing A reduces "bad" cholesterol by 95%, and Hy-Brasil State University puts out a study that says that Thing A impedes kidney function. They're looking at different things - and so they're seeing different results. And the media will report that U of L says that Thing A is good for you, and a week later, that HBSU says that Thing A is bad for you. If all you're reading is the magazine articles, you'll get the impression that there's waffling - but if you read the studies, you'll see that two different groups of people are looking at two different effects. They just happen to be looking at two different effects of Thing A.

Please, please don't base your judgments on media reporting like this. When you see a contradiction like the one you're reporting, look deeper. You can't really take control of your life if you're acting on superficial "knowledge" of what's going on.

[Andrew Brunelle]

You would have to know everything about everything to really know what it is we are supposed to eat, drink, and consume in general. You would have to try everything, you would have to know every point in time, every circumstance, every person, how they would react to the kind of food/drink/whatever you're testing. So why don't we just use common sense? Unprocessed foods, preferably raw, do not denature or process things as it strips away part of it (usually the part that is beneficial). Use your own intelligence to figure out what's going on with your health.

[Chris Anthony]

Originally Posted by Andrew Brunelle

You would have to know everything about everything to really know what it is we are supposed to eat, drink, and consume in general. You would have to try everything, you would have to know every point in time, every circumstance, every person, how they would react to the kind of food/drink/whatever you're testing.

Andrew, you seem to be saying "we can't learn everything, so why learn anything?". Am I reading you right? If so, why is that a better philosophy than "we can't learn everything, so we should learn as much as we can"? If not, can you clarify your position for me?

[Dolazy]

When I started to 'think for myself' I actually started to consume more things that I like and that are supposedly unhealthy. Like beer and fries.
I think that as long as you feel good about what you eat you are ok. In my experience the problems only begin when you start to feel guilty about what you eat.

[escapee]

In my experience the problems only begin when you start to feel guilty about what you eat.

well, If you are in your early 20s .. ..... Just be very aware to change the way you approach health when something not right happening to your body. Most People really do love to learn from hard way ( For some, it's to late ).

The longeivity diets by Okinawans, Sardinians and Seventh-day Adventists

[impaul99]

Steve, last year I was so confused the contradictory information about Nutrition and Health that I went looking for real answers. I actually decided to take a course in Advanced Nutrition and have been studying it for about 10 months now. It has helped me tremendously to understand health and nutrition. Once you understand the basics of health it's not really that hard to look at studies and articles and pick out the crap from the good.

I would agree with you that there is a LOT of confusion out there as to what's good for you and what's not. Part of the problem is that it's being done on purpose by people with an agenda, and the other part of the problem is that food is such a source of pleasure for people that a lot of times people try to shape facts to agree with what they want to hear.

For example, you might be vegan so you'll be able to point out countless examples of why eating vegan is healthy, while others who eat meat and aren't willing to give it up will point out countless reasons why eating meat is important.

My point is this though: *IF* you're willing to make it important enough and devote a good chunk of time to studying nutrition and health, such as you've done with studying Self Development, it *IS* very possible to learn about proper health and nutrition. I would estimate that I've spent at least 250-300 study hours in the last 10 months studying nutrition and I do feel I have a good solid foundation and I'll continue to study more. However, if you're too lazy to do that, and you just read one article, then good luck trying to sort out the truth.

However, to say that it's too hard to understand health and just give up and do whatever you want, is kind of cynical and I don't think it helps people who have already tried doing what they think is right and are still unhealthy. If I read your article a year ago, I probably would have chosen not to take my nutrition course because I would have thought there is no point, and that would have been a big mistake because I've learned a lot from it.

I actually see no difference between the health industry and the self-help industry. You've been studying self-development for over a decade, what is different from saying the same thing about self-development? Based on your article, why couldn't someone say "THere's no point reading any self-development books or articles, they're all contradictory and they all have their own agenda's... Why read these articles by Steve Pavlina? He's just in it for the money! There's no point reading anything by anyone in self-development because they're just trying to sell me something, or promote their seminar or whatever. How could anyone help me with anything? I'm so unique! I have blue eyes, brown hair, weigh 190lbs, and I like the color red! I'm unique, I'm unique! Nobody can help me!"

I think the issue is that making decisions based on limited knowledge such as reading one or two articles on ANY subject is a bad way to live your life. Instead, do your studies, read the information out there, use books, and the Internet to educate yourself away from ignorace, and MOST IMPORANTANTLY, listen to your inuition, your inner voice, to tell you what's right for YOU!