Problems with Science

From time to time a share I joke about some of the really STUPID science that’s going on out there. It’s amusing in a way; but I get very incensed at the waste of money, when some really good trials of holistic principles can’t get off the ground because there are no funds available. This […] The post Another Pearl for the STUPID SCIENCE Column appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

Cholesterol IV is a treatment? How crazy does it get? They have been telling us (quite wrongly) that cholesterol is a problem and causes heart attacks. Now, they are giving cholesterol IV, as a treatment! This is how crazy “science” is. It flip flops remarkably every decade or so; usually not more than a quarter […]

Cholesterol IV is a treatment? How crazy does it get? They have been telling us (quite wrongly) that cholesterol is a problem and causes heart attacks. Now, they are giving cholesterol IV, as a treatment! This is how crazy “science” is. It flip flops remarkably every decade or so; usually not more than a quarter […] The post IV Cholesterol For Heart Disease appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

“Strike Vitamin D Off the List for Cold Prevention?” That was the headline. “Study clears up speculation about vitamin D reducing colds,” said the press release. So I was intrigued. Supposedly, vitamin D was “tested” and found ineffective in warding off colds and flu. But look what they ACTUALLY did… They had people take 200,000 […]

“Strike Vitamin D Off the List for Cold Prevention?” That was the headline. “Study clears up speculation about vitamin D reducing colds,” said the press release. So I was intrigued. Supposedly, vitamin D was “tested” and found ineffective in warding off colds and flu. But look what they ACTUALLY did… They had people take 200,000 […] The post This Is Evil appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

If a boxer knocked out 12 of 13 opponents, would you bet on him winning most of the next 10 bouts? Probably you would. Certainly, nobody would think you were crazy or crooked. But that’s bad science! Specifically, that’s not a big enough series of cases to justify confidence that he could keep winning. We have a lot of problems with defining science, even when we are well-meaning and intelligent (not in the pay of some drug cartel). The answers you get depend, largely, on the questions you ask (like in real life!) But one of the difficulties dogging mainstream science is randomized controlled double-blind trials. OK, I don’t need to go into the definition of double-blind, etc. Let’s focus on the word “randomized”. It means what is says. Somewhere in the study a computer spits out a series of random numbers, saying who gets what treatment, in what order. It’s supposed to remove chance and bias. But if you’ve ever tossed a coin and got 8 heads in a row, you’ll know that you can’t totally rule out the surprises of chance. The only way to eliminate it from your calculations is to do very large numbers of examples. We all know that if you go on and on tossing a coin, it will eventually come out roughly equal: as many tails as heads. 8 out of 10 heads was just a lucky run. It gave a false impression. But eventually you would have, say, 2963 heads and 2922 tails, or roughly equal. The trouble is, with science investigations, you can’t always assemble enough people to make a statistically significant case. You might need thousands of cases, yet you can only find a few hundred volunteers. What to do? Common sense says go ahead and make the best of it you can; at least you’ll get some sense of a result. You might even get lucky and find the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction (but remember the 8 heads out of 10 coin tosses warning!) Your results may not mean anything and that allows critics to trample on your nice published study, if they don’t like it. Big dilemma!

If a boxer knocked out 12 of 13 opponents, would you bet on him winning most of the next 10 bouts? Probably you would. Certainly, nobody would think you were crazy or crooked. But that’s bad science! Specifically, that’s not a big enough series of cases to justify confidence that he could keep winning. We have a lot of problems with defining science, even when we are well-meaning and intelligent (not in the pay of some drug cartel). The answers you get depend, largely, on the questions you ask (like in real life!) But one of the difficulties dogging mainstream science is randomized controlled double-blind trials. OK, I don’t need to go into the definition of double-blind, etc. Let’s focus on the word “randomized”. It means what is says. Somewhere in the study a computer spits out a series of random numbers, saying who gets what treatment, in what order. It’s supposed to remove chance and bias. But if you’ve ever tossed a coin and got 8 heads in a row, you’ll know that you can’t totally rule out the surprises of chance. The only way to eliminate it from your calculations is to do very large numbers of examples. We all know that if you go on and on tossing a coin, it will eventually come out roughly equal: as many tails as heads. 8 out of 10 heads was just a lucky run. It gave a false impression. But eventually you would have, say, 2963 heads and 2922 tails, or roughly equal. The trouble is, with science investigations, you can’t always assemble enough people to make a statistically significant case. You might need thousands of cases, yet you can only find a few hundred volunteers. What to do? Common sense says go ahead and make the best of it you can; at least you’ll get some sense of a result. You might even get lucky and find the evidence points overwhelmingly in one direction (but remember the 8 heads out of 10 coin tosses warning!) Your results may not mean anything and that allows critics to trample on your nice published study, if they don’t like it. Big dilemma!

Well, I don’t have to beat this to death. We all know drugs are pretty iffy, don’t we? Those of you new to my list may not be familiar with my saying: almost all drugs poison something. For example, pain killers poison part of the nervous system. But the real issue, of course, is poisoning […]

Well, I don’t have to beat this to death. We all know drugs are pretty iffy, don’t we? Those of you new to my list may not be familiar with my saying: almost all drugs poison something. For example, pain killers poison part of the nervous system. But the real issue, of course, is poisoning […] The post Safety Issues With Quarter Of New Drugs appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

Regular readers will know that I can’t resist an occasional laugh at some of the really mindless science that gets into print. It’s not just the daft principle of it that irks me; it’s also a sense of amazement at money being available to waste on stupid studies that have little purpose. We’ve had the […]

Regular readers will know that I can’t resist an occasional laugh at some of the really mindless science that gets into print. It’s not just the daft principle of it that irks me; it’s also a sense of amazement at money being available to waste on stupid studies that have little purpose. We’ve had the […] The post More Silly Science – It Keeps On Coming! appeared first on Dr. Keith Scott-Mumby.

Every now and again I report on what seems like a total, mindless waste of money. Like this study. 13 years and 15,000 people interviewed and tracked, at  Gawd knows what cost. And the results? A pot belly makes you more likely to have a heart attack and die a sudden death! What a breakthrough […]