I've had a couple of different comments written on this topic--and deleted them as too close to combative. Here's my last try:
We have a society that is woefully ignorant about science, and how science works--even about what it IS. And that ignorance is celebrated by many people in many ways. Add to it very vocal and very high profile people who really should know better, and we have where we are.
I know we can't argue people out of it by logic or even by real evidence. It's just very, very frustrating to me.
Halbert my PC Brother,
I'm not quite sure what you are speaking of or referring to, especially when you say "We have a society that is woefully ignorant about
science, and how science works--even about
what it IS........we can't argue people out of it by logic or even by real evidence.".
Now one part of this discussion is when your neighbor tells you to suck on apricot pits or take a dose of bicarb and it will cure your cancer, no need for those medical treatments. And they have no real scientific studies to back them up. That is obviously not a good thing, and I think 99% of the posters here already know that, and at the very least is to be viewed with great skepticism. And if that sort of thing is what you are speaking of, then I am fully with you.
If it seems harmless and cheap, maybe we will try it anyway, but with great doubt. But that doesn't mean we blow off our physicians, in fact, we might even ask them if it is OK if we try such. But most of us are not going to believe it without some hard evidence. Even if we try it just in case, we probably don't really believe it without the evidence.
But then there are times when folks like me present studies by sciency types that seem to show lots of evidence for the possibility that substance A or food B or diet C is very helpful for disease X, while at the same time causing no significant SEs. Sometimes those studies are not, say, just looking at the blood levels of substance A vs how many people get disease X or, if they already have it, how well they do in the future. But sometimes the studies are even real sho nuff clinical trials, sometimes even sho nuff randomized, placebo controlled trials. Like the one I posted earlier from Iran about
turmeric vs lupus caused kidney inflammation. And the many, many others I have posted here over the years, often not from Iran, but from right here at some USA university or hospital (not that we automatically can't trust an Iranian source. They have real docs in Iran, some of whom end up in the USA doing residency).
So those will be the science of RCTs, but done on something that is clearly considered alternative relative to 50K per year drugs with their not uncommon SEs. So assuming you don't possess other unbiased and trusted RCTs contradicting those results, what is your attitude towards that alternative approach? Do you call it science and say that might be worth trying or certainly needs to be looked into further? Or do you still call it snake oil because it does not come from a prescript
you(or whoever) still call it snake oil and expensive urine, I'd really like to know, why don't you accept the science of the RCT? ( and not that RCT is the only acceptable evidence, but it is closer to actual proof. But if something is apparently harmless and cheap, I may not need RCT level evidence to at least try it, or at least ask my docs if it is OK.) I sometimes feel that when such studies are presented here, by me or others, they are viewed as though they are still nothing but old wives tales and rumors, without scientific backing. When the science, from trustworthy sources, is right there in black and white. And such a response often baffles me.
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 11/2/2018 1:32:45 PM (GMT-6)