Re: Medical Research
- From: "George Conklin" <georgeconklin1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 13 May 2006 22:19:43 GMT
"Skeptic" <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:GLs9g.147559$oL.139680@xxxxxxxxxxxx
what,
"Herman Rubin" <hrubin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:e45cn7$ipa@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <ex%8g.726475$084.390023@attbi_s22>,
Skeptic <bcs002b@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"george conklin" <george@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Ii%8g.3447$u4.1926@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
The New York Times today has a long article on breast cancer research.
It
seems that current recommendations for chemotherapy were made before
anyone bothered to look at estrogen dependent tumors and non-estrogen
dependent tumors. Looking at the data with the one new variable, it
turns
out that most of the benefits of the chemotherapy were from those who
had
non-estrogen dependent tumors.
But guess what: the hidebound medical business states that since this
one
variable was not thought of IN ADVANCE, the results of the actual
chemotherapy sessions do not meet the 'gold standard,' and thus they
want
to start all over again. Now that is massive stupidity, but guess
publishing.that is what is going to happen.
It definitely is massive stupidity; I do know the origin
of this type of restriction on jumping to conclusions, and
if done recklessly, MAJOR errors will be made.
You don't understand because you don't understand what is meant by a
scientific study or proof or study design.
He understands SOME of it; it is the medical profession
which does not understand how to use statistics. The
practitioners have had beginning cookbook courses which
do not get into the foundations at all; they get recipes,
but do not know whether they are cooking fish or fowl.
Most MD's use statisticians for their statistical analyses when
treatment
Statistical decision theory is not that old, but is not
often even taught. The problems need to be approached
as what action to take, not whether the effect is
"statistically significant"; that term, which is ancient,
needs to be eradicated, as it tells me nothing of
importance. The p value, by itself, is misleading.
Suffice it to say, each
oncologist is free to decide for him/herself if chemo or hormone
commonlyis the way to go.
I have a great objection to this. Each oncologist needs
to inform the patient of the known risks and benefits,
and to give a probability assessment of the costs and
benefits of any available treatment, taking into account
the individual patient. Then the patient should decide
what action to take, based on his or her individual
weights of importance, and also individual contribution
to the assessment of probabilities.
I agree. The patient makes the ultimate decision and needs have the
necessary to make that decision. In actual practice, patients most
ask the doctor what they recommend and follow that advice. So while your
theory of the patient making the decision is, of course, correct. In
practice it will most commonly be the recommendation of the doctor that
decides treatment. Thus, treatment can and will vary from practice to
practice.
It depends almost entirely on where the MD went to school and what they
speciality is.
.
- References:
- Breast Cancer Research
- From: george conklin
- Re: Breast Cancer Research
- From: Skeptic
- Medical Research
- From: Herman Rubin
- Re: Medical Research
- From: Skeptic
- Breast Cancer Research
- Prev by Date: Re: Medical Research
- Next by Date: Re: Medical Research-Evidence
- Previous by thread: Re: Medical Research
- Next by thread: Re: Medical Research
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
