Some denizens of this forum are fond of posting pre-clinical (test tube and mouse) studies and drawing conclusions from them as if they were actionable.
A major study tried to reproduce such studies, and couldn't.
Of the 193 studies, only a quarter of them could be reproduced at all. And of the ones that could be reproduced, the effect was null about half the time when the original was positive. And even when positive, the effect size in the replication was smaller than the original in 92% of cases.
This means that we waste a lot of money and effort performing clinical trials (in humans) when there is no reason to do so. It also means that the biochemical justification we rely on to tell us why some substance is effective is mostly wrong.
Pre-clinical studies should NEVER be used as an excuse to self medicate.
Written by
Tall_Allen
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
34 Replies
•
Agreed.
30 years in the medical engineering and aerospace fields taught me to test, test, and then test some more.
Don't rely on studies. But ignore them at your own peril. Get ideas from them. Analyze. Think. Research. discuss. brainstorm. We have brains. Too often we take the easy way out and let others decide our fate. Use your brain!
I disagree. There are confirmed randomized clinical trials that have been replicated and are completely reliable. Biology is not physics. One can't "think" one's way to an appropriate treatment.
Correct again. This is why we need to test and verify. And you also touched on another good point. Studies do not replicate all individuals but are only completely reliable for the particular subjects in the study. This can lead people to blindly "think" that a given treatment can be applied to them.
It's not at all mystical. In physics, you drop 2 balls of different weights from a certain height and they both land at the same time. Every time. In biology, one man gets Covid-19 and dies from it, while another doesn't even notice he has it.
Some say that chemistry is applied physics, and biology is applied chemistry, but I think that is too simplistic. It is useless to go back to physics to explain biological phenomena. Biology is far to complex for that. Complexity generates chaos (in the mathematical sense), adaptive systems, and emergent phenomena (e.g., life, consciousness, qualia).
Could you please give me an example of how biology does not obey physical laws? Viruses and interactions with them are constrained by the laws of physics. By the way, life, consciousness, qualia, all obey the laws of physics. I'm looking for something that breaks the rules so to speak.
In general, just because we do not fully understand all of the cause-and-effect relationships does not mean that physical laws do not apply. Quantum mechanics is as close as I can get but even then I think that uncertainty does not equal the inability to understand and explain.
If you can't come up with a process that breaks the laws of physics or can not be explained that's okay. I can't either.
Interesting discussion. Perhaps a different universe with different physical properties (and therefore laws or even lack thereof?).
I didn't say that biology doesn't follow physical laws - that's what YOU said. I said physics is useless in biology. I gave examples why. Re-read what I wrote: Chaotics, Complex Adaptive Systems, and Emergence. Suggest you look them up.
Odd. You admit by default that biology follows physical laws but at the same time you claim that physics is useless in biology. Where did you study physics?
I will admit when I don't know something. That happens often and I endeavor to learn from others. I think that this is a strength.
You may now have the last word. But please tell me where you studied. I am gathering info on where to send my son.
You are creating strawman arguments. I don't have to "admit" anything because you simply made up that I said that.
Physics is useless in biology. Show me one example of where it is useful. Do you think that abiraterone could have been designed and tested by a physicist?
RSH1...Very good point. ."Ignore them at your own peril." We have right to look at ALL type of studies.. from any corner of the World. Do not let anyone, put you in a small tight box. There may be various reasons ..why "they" do not want you to keep an open mind on all studies...Free and open minds are difficult to control and manipulate. I suggest. .keep an open mind and analyse logically every type of studies and draw your own informed conclusions. Free minds of free people are necessary. Such minds can not be chained by Communists or pathologically greedy Corporates. That why we say.. By the people, for the people"
Some of us have the humility to understand that "if we have seen farther, it is because we have stood on the shoulders of giants. (Newton)" It is interesting that you paradoxically echo Marx in telling people to "free" themselves of the shackles of science. Paranoia ("they") may be harmful to your health.
When looking at any study, one must consider the inclusion criteria. While a well designed clinical trial suggests that a particular treatment may be effective, it can only be considered for patients that meet the study criteria. Generalizing the results to other patients may not be appropriate.
My partner is a cancer research scientist with the BC Cancer Agency. He says the same thing. Many, many mouse studies and other work needs to be done before authorities will even consider giving permission to test theories out on humans. It takes years of work, large sums of money, and many unsuccessful experiments for ideas to to get to the clinical trial stage ... and many of those end up as disappointments too. I do, however, enjoy reading about those studies as they let us know what direction scientists are heading towards and what the money that is raised is being used for.
We say each of us is different and each of our cancers are different.. We see some of the guys doing well on on med and others on a different one... Now I know we are all different from mice.
My question is why is there such randomness in the scientific world? ? The answer is obvious to me. I think scientific studies are worthy but it seems to me separating the truth from the trash is so frustrating in trying to figure out what is what.
I read an article on the internet today that scientists in China have discovered a potential “ “Fountain of Youth” pill with grape seeds that will extend human life by 10 - 20 years! Of course the study was performed on, wait for it, MICE.
Ey yah!
TA, your dedication to posting reasonable and worthy factors for our consideration is most appreciated.
Medical science, which is a process done by consensus, has agreed upon "levels of evidence" and how to evaluate that evidence. Because of google, studies that were meant only to generate hypotheses for more studies are given full weight and credit by many patients, sadly.
It depends what one is risking by participating, and what the potential reward is. When I joined a clinical trial for SBRT, I looked at the results of HDR brachy monotherapy, which is radiobiologically similar, and the side effects seemed to be no worse than IGRT/IMRT. Still I signed a document stating all the things that could go wrong. The benefit seemed worth the risk.
T_A, could you please remind me of your initial diagnosis?
T_A wrote --- " Immunotherapy for prostate cancer continues to disappoint, but at least we are learning why
Tall_Allen profile image
Tall_Allen•
3 years ago•13 Replies
I've updated this article about the importance of timing in prostate cancer therapies with the early results of the "CHECKMATE 650" clinical trial that combined nivolumab (Opdivo) and ipilimumab (Yervoy)... "
In the pyramid of evidence below, it is probably the blue studies that are worth reading to be reasonably sure that a treatment does more good than harm. Red studies can be fun to read but insane to base treatment decisions on. Wouldn't it be great with such a color code when linking to a study.
None of matters. If a person truly believes that smearing peanut butter on their ass slows down metastatic cancer then no harm, no foul. I for one refuse to spend countless hours researching bland data with a long shot hope of living an extra two months. This is yet another bait posting designed to stir the pot between the warring factions in this group.
What one does in the privacy of his own home is his business. When your "peanut butter man" stands on the soapbox that this forum provides in an effort to convince others to do the same, he may be harming others. In my belief system, it is wrong to sit idly by and watch one person harming another.
"The researchers couldn’t complete the majority of experiments because the team couldn’t gather enough information from the original papers or their authors about methods used, or obtain the necessary materials needed to attempt replication."
"Still, it’s not that failure to replicate means that a study was wrong or that replicating it means that the findings are correct, says Shirley Wang, an epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and Harvard Medical School. “It just means that you’re able to reproduce,” she says, a point that the reproducibility project also stresses."
I understand your point of view and I would not advocate the self administering any substance on the basis of a "mouse" study or a test tube study. But I would not deny anyone access to the information.
Let us face the facts. Most of the treatments we receive in combination are tests on survival rates. Someone sorts though those rates and pontificates on the "best" treatments.
It's all a crap-shoot. Besides it is those test tube studies that the drug companies use to see what is marketable.
I did not say to deny access. I just said that many who post on this site haven't a clue as to how to evaluate such studies, and they often recommend things to patients based on research they can't begin to evaluate.
I agree that survival (human, not mice) and toxicity are the standard endpoints for most trials. What is wrong with that?
Drug companies are actually the ones complaining about the lack of reproducibility of the test tube studies. They NEVER market based on test tube studies - show me an example. Why would they when the FDA requires them to prove efficacy and safety in humans?
The ability to reply to this post has been turned off.
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Study says orchiectomy has higher risks for fracture than chemical castration. I wonder why. 
Does this sound familiar on ADT
Whole grain consumption and human health.
After RP what is the best step for lymph node inv?
guess what: men with prostate cancer have depression!
