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

[Steve Pavlina]

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.

[Steve Pavlina]

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

[Steve Pavlina]

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.