Positively a rebuttal

Let's address one of DQ's favorite mantras:

"Cutting and pasting more studies by those closely tied to the cancer industry will get any creedence here, not should it, since it has been proven that such studies are five times (or more) as likely to return a favorable result as truly independent studies."

While this sweeping claim has not been proven (and, as I recall, comes from exactly the kind of scientific publication DQ says automatically cannot be trusted), it is true that favorable studies _in general_ are more likely to get published than negative ones. It's a built-in bias on the part of many scientific journal editors, who see positive results as more worthwhile and exciting than negative ones, and more likely to get attention for their publications. What goes unnoticed is that favorable results are also far more likely to be published in the case of alternative remedies, leading to false impressions of the effectiveness of these treatments. This phenomenon is reviewed in an excellent book recently published, R. Barker Bausell's "Snake Oil Science":

"Negative studies tend not to get published (the file drawer effect). Research done by believers and pharmaceutical companies tends to be more positive than research done by others. Studies from non-English speaking countries are notoriously unreliable for various reasons – 98% of the acupuncture studies from Asia are positive, compared to 30% from Canada, Australia, and New Zealand."


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=4


So does this mean that we should trust no research at all, even the kind that reinforces our beliefs and prejudices? Nope - but it does mean we should pay the most attention to large-scale double blind clinical trials in reputable journals, especialy those using updated standards of reporting:


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1120415


Being aware of possible biases based on funding sources is a good idea - but what we should _not_ do is fall for sweeping Conspiracy claims designed to make us reject any sorts of conclusions the conspiracy theorist finds inconvenient.

DQ: "This forum was created as a rebuttal itself of the failed mainstream treatments and medicine and the continued bogus studies and misstruths we are told."

Um...mind telling us then why it's called a "debate" forum? What is it we're supposed to be debating, if one major viewpoint is off limits?
There are others here at CureZone who don't understand this point either, and are outraged that anyone should challenge their views in a debate forum. Apparently, for a subject like cancer or vaccination, their idea of debate is one party saying "Mainstream medicine is BAD!" - then another chiming in with "No, it's REALLY REALLY BAD!!!", followed by the first poster saying "Gee, I guess you're right." :)

That's not "debate" - that's promotion of orthodoxy. If that's what you want, go for it...you can have a ALL CANCER TREATMENT BUT OURS IS BAD forum, a vaccination IS BAD forum, etc. etc. Just don't pretend you're having a debate. That requires a willingness to civilly exchange views with people who think differently than you do.

Alert Webmaster & Moderators

2 of 3 (66%) readers agree with this message.  Hide votes     What is this?
How do you feel about this message?     Agree     Disagree       Hide this question