I needed to disable self sign-ups because I’ve been getting too many spam-type accounts. Thanks.
Interesting Quotes
I ran across this quote at another site.
I have to agree on medical research not being scientific. I am a scientist by education and an engineer by vocation. I frequently act as an applied scientist. I regularly read, and sometimes write research papers. I say this to explain I have some understanding of the general subject. I always thought medicine was a form of applied science, applied biology in particular. As a form of applied science. I assumed the following process.
1. Hypothesize a biological basis for observed illness/symptoms.
2. Perform experiments to verify or refute the hypothesized illness mechanism.
3. Refine the biological illness causal process based on experiment.
4. Once the mechanism is determined, hypothesize a form of treatment.
5. Perform experiments on the hypothesized treatment to quantify efficacy, safety, and any side effects
6. Refine the treatment based on experimental results.
Based on my reading of many median all research articles a number of years ago, that is roughly what I saw from research about 100 years ago, but that stopped between 1930 and 1950. From 1950 onward, the experimentation to quantify and understand the causal mechanism, basically ended. They now only do enough to guess at a possible pharmaceutical to address symptoms, the apply double blind techniques to determine efficacy, safety, and side effects for various protocols. This is not applied science but applied pharmacology. It’s how technicians would do science without understanding the scientific method.
Quote from John Fry on February 15, 2019, 9:24 pmI ran across this quote at another site.
I have to agree on medical research not being scientific. I am a scientist by education and an engineer by vocation. I frequently act as an applied scientist. I regularly read, and sometimes write research papers. I say this to explain I have some understanding of the general subject. I always thought medicine was a form of applied science, applied biology in particular. As a form of applied science. I assumed the following process.
1. Hypothesize a biological basis for observed illness/symptoms.
2. Perform experiments to verify or refute the hypothesized illness mechanism.
3. Refine the biological illness causal process based on experiment.
4. Once the mechanism is determined, hypothesize a form of treatment.
5. Perform experiments on the hypothesized treatment to quantify efficacy, safety, and any side effects
6. Refine the treatment based on experimental results.
Based on my reading of many median all research articles a number of years ago, that is roughly what I saw from research about 100 years ago, but that stopped between 1930 and 1950. From 1950 onward, the experimentation to quantify and understand the causal mechanism, basically ended. They now only do enough to guess at a possible pharmaceutical to address symptoms, the apply double blind techniques to determine efficacy, safety, and side effects for various protocols. This is not applied science but applied pharmacology. It’s how technicians would do science without understanding the scientific method.
Yes, there is lots of evidence that pharma rules health care. This is more evidence and a good look at the crap that gets passed off as science. And what should be more nails in the coffin of allopathic medicine (and much of science?). Appreciate the perspective.
From what i have been told, when worked within research, approximately 98% of all research (world wide?) is funded with money from some sort of profit driven company, usually pharmaceutical. Any conflict of interest should be listed under acknowlegement at the end of the study. But there is so much hiearchy in many boards regarding what gets published or not, quite a bit of corruption as well (big shocker, right?). Its no longer about curiosity, learning things and finding the truth ("truth"), it is about being recognized as a name in the field and making money. When you have become a name, your shit will get published. Especially if your funders have enough money, so to speak... 🙄