Sheep from goats in research papers

[Bagrat]

I have said before that unless you are very clever or have lots of experience in such things, interpreting the results of research is a minefield.

Found this very interesting and helpful.

joinzoe.com/learn/nutrition...

[CDreamer]

Excellent Article, always a fan of Zoe stuff.

Doctoring the Data is a book by Malcom Kendrick which I found very useful - focuses more on how to interpret the data quoted in clinical studies and trials, quite enlightening. His latest book on The Clot Thickens about arteriosclerosis maybe controversial - but also shines a light on how once a subject is accepted, it is very difficult to challenge.

I met a librarian on holiday whose job it was to categorise published clinical studies, he reckoned it was now nearly impossible for medics to keep up to date as they would need to read about 10,000 papers however most of them were either repetitions of earlier work or not worth the read.

It’s amazing how we have been programmed to believe anything and everything if it is published in any sort of media.

[Auriculaire in reply to CDreamer]

I was not impressed by some of the content of this article . The stuff about whether a paper has been published in a high impact "reliable" journal for example. Former editors of both the NEJM and the BMJ have stated that the corruption of medical publishing by the money of the Pharmaceutical industry ( due to the advertising money they rely upon ) makes them unreliable. As for Nature there is a an ongoing controversy about the publication of the early paper in 2020 refuting any notion of a "lab leak" theory for the origin of Sars Cov 2. So rubbish gets published in prestigious journals too. Supreme recent example - the Lancet study on the dangers of HCL treatment for covid by Mehra et al. Mehra is a respected cardiologist in America but the data used for his study provided by a co - author was found to be totally spurious. Peer reviewers saw nothing. As for supplements studies being done by sponsors - what is different or unusual about that? All RCTs for drugs are done by industry- nobody else can afford to do them!

I found the singling out of Asim Malhotra very suspicious. But it also raises another point. Not just that rubbish can be published in high impact prestigious journals if it suits Pharma ( the Lancetgate Mehra paper was published at a time when HCL use was being rubbished but use of toxic Remdesivir promoted and Mehra worked at a hospital involved in Remdesivir trials), but that Pharma can stop the publication in prestige journals (by threatening not to advertise in them) if they publish favourable trials for cheap interventions that might cause loss of profits if used instead of their expensive drugs. Or if they criticise said expensive interventions. Whistleblowers at journals have given examples of this happening. I would bet my house that Malhotra could not get his paper published elsewhere because it threw doubts on the usefulness of mass covid vaccination.

I appreciate that the authors of the article are trying to warn people about what to look out for when assessing studies on supplements and they do give a caveat about their tips being unreliable for assessing the claims of individual studies .

[Bagrat in reply to Auriculaire]

Thatis a most interesting response, thank you.I think it was mentioned that drug companies backing research studies did not of itself make them unreliable, just another strand of which we should be aware.

I agree that "toeing the party line" may also play its part. We are all aware I'm sure that questionable methods were used to decide the management of the pandemic and thus the management of information released had to be managed too.

[DizzyD in reply to Auriculaire]

Totally agree with you Auriculaire. I am so impressed by all of the content in your post. I did read what the authors wrote with an open mind but when I got to section concerning Dr Malhotra's paper a red light flashed on in my head. Instantly, I knew his paper was intentionally being blocked by the corrupt powers that be who won't allow him to have a voice because his views do not fit their narrative. Hence, I aborted reading the article any further. Over the past few years Aseem Malhotra has indeed tried to question the usefulness of covid vaccination rollouts. Many people died, others were injured after vax. Same goes for Remdesiveir and Madazelam treatment. Notably HCL was pushed out as a valid treatment, as was Ivermectin not because it did not work but simply because there was no studies to prove any efficacy. Knowing what I now know about corrupt world I live in I will continue to be very suspicious/sceptical of all research funded by pharmaceutical companies.

In my mind it's all about the money. Personally science an research papers has become a misleading biased farce advocating that one pill or vax fills all.

Many people had no problems with the vax and will defend its benefits to the hilt. But what about the injured and dead people? Who is speaking out for them? People need to look at downside of vax rollout. One may proclaim that vax injuries is a fallacy. Why is out government making insulting payments to vaccine injured people? Notably all governments signed a disclaimer with pharmaceutical companies which made it impossible for injured people to issue a lawsuit against them.

Sorry went off topic and had a rant.

Hey Auriculaire, I bet my life that Aseem Malhotra could not get his paper published elsewhere because it related to the downside of mass covid jabs that needs to be questioned.

[Auriculaire in reply to DizzyD]

At the time the Mehra paper was published in the Lancet there were several clinical trials tor HCL ongoing here in France some of which were showing positive results. The spurious data (ie totally made up ) provided by Surgisphere led to the stopping of ongoing trials throughout the world. However once Lancetgate broke and the paper was retracted by the authors and the Lancet , these trials were not reinstated . No surprise here -our then Health Minister Veran is a Pharma shill. Many of the trials that had been completed using HCL were done with toxic doses on late stage patients despite the advocates insisting that it's utility was when used as early as possible and at the safe doses that are used for years on end for Lupus and RA patients - trials designed to fail? Tough for the poor participants many of whom died - murder some might say.As for Ivermectin there have been several clinical trials which have shown good results particularly when used for prophylaxis and early treatment. Trials which were at least as well conducted as those for the vaccines. The latter are flawed too but there are rank double standards and very few people will risk their careers/ reputations pointing it out.

Fauci has published a paper recently more or less saying that the vaccines have been unsatisfactory due to their failure to prevent transmission. He says that this is due to injected vaccines not being able to provoke mucosal immunity. Well duh!!!! As if this had not been known for decades! Same is true for flu vaccines with very little efficacy. Big money spinners though.

[Ppiman]

That looks to be intersting, thanks for the link. I shall enjoy reading it later. I spent some of my working life interpreting and re-writing clinical studies for a non-technical audience so have always been amazed at many of the claims some people make pointing to this or that misinterpreted clinical study as "evidence". I see it happening at present quite often to show the dangers of covid vaccination, for example.

Steve

[Bagrat in reply to Ppiman]

Yes the virus vaccs is a case in point, though I do think the risk benefit stats have changed since onset. Happy Monday Wendy

[irene75359]

Thank you for that, Bagrat. That link took me from one article to another all of which I found really interesting. Am now on their email list!

[john-boy-92]

General principles: is it a meta-data study; who did the peer review; who funded it; is the outcome in line with the objectives?