Does This Story Damage Trust In Research?

[Maine farmer]

In case you missed the headlines http://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research

 

I feel vindicated for refusing to give up my butter cheese and cream.

[exchemist]

In case you missed the headlines http://www.statnews.com/2016/09/12/sugar-industry-harvard-research

 

I feel vindicated for refusing to give up my butter cheese and cream.

 

This is not really news, though, is it? The role of sugar, and the overstating of the role of saturated fat, is something I feel sure I have been reading about for several years now.  

 

The French in Normandy live to a ripe old age and they eat masses of butter and cheese. But.....they drink red wine and don't eat much sugar. 

[Maine farmer]

This goes beyond simply overstating the role of saturated fat as a cause of heart disease.  This was an organized campaign to profit from using researchers to mislead not just consumers, but the medical community at large.  

 

Now researchers have convinced a lot of doctors that almost all patients need statin drugs, even if their cholesterol is not high.  Given the potential negative side effects of drugs, how can we trust the research that our doctors are relying on to make decisions ?

 

I am at the point that I will only see a doctor if I can't stop the bleeding with  a rag and duct tape, or if I am in extreme pain.  Both are rare events.

[exchemist]

This goes beyond simply overstating the role of saturated fat as a cause of heart disease.  This was an organized campaign to profit from using researchers to mislead not just consumers, but the medical community at large.  

 

Now researchers have convinced a lot of doctors that almost all patients need statin drugs, even if their cholesterol is not high.  Given the potential negative side effects of drugs, how can we trust the research that our doctors are relying on to make decisions ?

 

I am at the point that I will only see a doctor if I can't stop the bleeding with  a rag and duct tape, or if I am in extreme pain.  Both are rare events.

I think you are overreacting. It is always highly regrettable when a body of research is found to be biased, but science proceeds by competition between contending ideas and there is often controversy at the cutting edge, which can take years, or even decades, before a consensus view can emerge. I think one should always treat new findings with some degree of circumspection.

 

By contrast, 95% of modern medicine is based on findings that are old enough, and settled enough, for this not to be a real issue. So I think it is disproportionate to start mistrusting doctors in general, just because you have read about some bad science concerning diet.

 

The issue of diet and health is in my view a nightmare. The media love stories about it, especially when there are contradictory findings. The problem seems to me to be that dietary theories rely largely on mere epidemiology, rather than actual detection of mechanisms responsible for the outcomes. And of course it is very hard to do controlled experiments on diet, as individual people live lives that inevitably differ in so many ways.

 

With diet, I suspect the best thing is to eat and drink everything in moderation, including alcohol, don't drive when you could walk or cycle - and avoid dietary fads like the plague!   

[Maine farmer]

 

 

By contrast, 95% of modern medicine is based on findings that are old enough, and settled enough, for this not to be a real issue. So I think it is disproportionate to start mistrusting doctors in general, just because you have read about some bad science concerning diet.

 

 

It isn't so much about mistrusting doctors in general, but choosing the right doctor is very important, and time consuming.  

 

It also goes beyond diet.  The drug companies have a lot of money invested in convincing us we need drugs to live.  Don't you think there is a substantial incentive to influence the outcome of research?

[exchemist]

It isn't so much about mistrusting doctors in general, but choosing the right doctor is very important, and time consuming.  

 

It also goes beyond diet.  The drug companies have a lot of money invested in convincing us we need drugs to live.  Don't you think there is a substantial incentive to influence the outcome of research?

 

They may. But that's why we need doctors, to tell us whether we really need these drugs or not.

 

The fact is that drug companies are very inventive and medicine has advanced by leaps and bounds, partly as a result. My wife lived for seven years with ovarian cancer and was able to stay well, working and active, though seven separate courses of chemotherapy. That would have been unthinkable 20years ago. Her treatment involved 5 different chemo agents, all developed by drug companies, plus various anti-nausea and other anti-side effect drugs to make it tolerable.

 

But the drugs to use were chosen by her oncologist, who had enough experience and independence to know what works and what might have been  hyped. It's not a perfect system of course, but nothing is in human affairs.

[JMJones0424]

Sorry for the belated answer, but no.  I can see how, if one wanted to, one could find reason to distrust popular scientific articles regarding health.  Humans are not lab rats.  Quite a few popular science stories require one to believe that humans are lab rats.  There are a lot of good reasons to believe that in some cases, lab rats are not a good substitute for human trials.  And, human trials are quite necessarily limited in scope.

 

The article linked originally by Farming Guy seems damning.  However, I think the important point to notice is that the study of human dietary requirements is fraught with more than just scientific curiosity. Rather than accepting the most recent finding regarding dietary recommendations, I think it is more advisable that one restrict caloric intake to maintain a healthy weight and consume a balanced diet.  The finer points of that recommendation have yet to be substantially worked out.

[current]

Sorry for the belated answer, but no.  I can see how, if one wanted to, one could find reason to distrust popular scientific articles regarding health.  Humans are not lab rats.  Quite a few popular science stories require one to believe that humans are lab rats.  There are a lot of good reasons to believe that in some cases, lab rats are not a good substitute for human trials.  And, human trials are quite necessarily limited in scope.

 

The article linked originally by Farming Guy seems damning.  However, I think the important point to notice is that the study of human dietary requirements is fraught with more than just scientific curiosity. Rather than accepting the most recent finding regarding dietary recommendations, I think it is more advisable that one restrict caloric intake to maintain a healthy weight and consume a balanced diet.  The finer points of that recommendation have yet to be substantially worked out.

The damage to research is when the research become politicalized .

 

Such as climte change and gmos.