medical research

The link in the post did not work for me, still...........

http://www.siliconinvestor.com/readmsg. ... txt=cancer research


"
From: LindyBill

5/7/2013 12:54:38 PM





of 24213







Just published in NATURE. The big time. Only 11% of CANCER RESEARCH could be thought of as unbiased and reproducible.

Here's the full text pdf of this study.
www.panoptic.be/plicploc/blog/wp-conten ... 83531a.pdf

Quoting from a key part of this pdf:

"CONFIRMING RESEARCH FINDINGS
The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value — that although there might be some errors in detail, the main message of the paper can be relied on and the data will, for the most part, stand the test of time. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. Although the issue of irreproducible data has been discussed between scientists for decades, it has recently received greater attention (see go.nature.com/q7i2up) as the costs of drug development have increased along with the number of late-stage clinical-trial failures and the demand for more effective therapies.

Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular line of RESEARCH, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, tried to confirm published findings related to that work. Fifty-three papers were deemed ‘landmark’ studies (see ‘Reproducibility of RESEARCH findings’). It was acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only 6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical RESEARCH, this was a shocking result."

It makes you wonder, if only 11% of published preclinical CANCERRESEARCH studies can be confirmed by later RESEARCH, what about other RESEARCH in other medical areas? Things like cardiovascular research? Things like dietary RESEARCH and the influence of dietary factors on CVD risk?

Maybe we should only trust n=1 studies we do on ourselves."

I do NOT trust the medical community in general.....I do NOT subscribe to every ailment requires a med....I do NOT subscribe to better
living thru chemistry, I am my OWN health advocate and I ask ALOT of questions...my mantra....the LEAST amount of meds in your
body the BETTER your life....I take ONE med...HRT. Pill pushing doctors are to be AVOIDED at all cost.JMO

Just listen to AM radio early Saturday morning

---

there's quacks galore selling just about everything you can imagine.