There's an interesting article in Newsweek about the dangers of contradictory (and often defective) medical studies. Here's a brief excerpt.
If you follow the news about health research, you risk whiplash. First garlic lowers bad cholesterol, then - after more study - it doesn’t. Hormone replacement reduces the risk of heart disease in postmenopausal women, until a huge study finds that it doesn’t (and that it raises the risk of breast cancer to boot). Eating a big breakfast cuts your total daily calories, or not - as a study released last week finds. Yet even if biomedical research can be a fickle guide, we rely on it.
But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong. The result is a system that leads patients and physicians astray - spurring often costly regimens that won’t help and may even harm you.
. . .
In just the last two months, two pillars of preventive medicine fell. A major study concluded there’s no good evidence that statins (drugs like Lipitor and Crestor) help people with no history of heart disease. The study, by the Cochrane Collaboration, a global consortium of biomedical experts, was based on an evaluation of 14 individual trials with 34,272 patients. Cost of statins: more than $20 billion per year, of which half may be unnecessary. (Pfizer, which makes Lipitor, responds in part that "managing cardiovascular disease risk factors is complicated".) In November a panel of the Institute of Medicine concluded that having a blood test for vitamin D is pointless: almost everyone has enough D for bone health (20 nanograms per milliliter) without taking supplements or calcium pills. Cost of vitamin D: $425 million per year.
There's more at the link, along with a gallery of useful and not-so-useful medical 'breakthroughs'. Useful, informative and recommended reading.
Peter
Suggest you have a look here:
ReplyDeletehttp://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/
Tim.
Tim, thanks for the link! That's a very interesting Web site - and it ties in very neatly with the article in Newsweek.
ReplyDeletegood point, some of our current perception of good food/bad food is developed off of proven wrong research. It remains because it has become ingrained.
ReplyDeleteAND I believe because it furthers some groups core concept of less is better for westerners.