|
|
|
Welcome to the Quality Counts. For those health conscious consumers and medical professionals that are looking to purchase nutritional supplements, vitamins, herbs, learning about medications, losing weight, health food, low carbs, high protein nutrition, and exercise, you have come to the right place. Quality Counts serves both the medical practitioner and consumer interested in nutritional therapy and alternative medicine.
Home > Health Conditions > Clinical Trials.
Clinical Trials
-
Double Espresso vs Prostate Cancer - Medscape, 12/17/10 -
"This wasn't a randomized trial. It was
epidemiologic observational research. What they did was they gave people a
questionnaire about their coffee drinking habits, and then they correlated
that with hospital records on who got advanced prostate cancer and who
didn't. Of course, there's a big problem with doing that type of research,
which is that people who drink coffee may be different from people who don't
drink coffee in all sorts of ways other than their caffeine consumption.
Here's the number-one reason I don't actually believe the study. What the
investigators reported was a 60% decrease in your risk for advanced prostate
cancer if you drank coffee. Finasteride and dutasteride, these are drugs
that we know in randomized trials are effective for prostate cancer, and we
know that they have a mechanism of action that is pertinent to the prostate.
Those 2 drugs reduce the risk for cancer by about 25%. Nothing is going to
reduce the risk for advanced prostate cancer by 60%. I doubt if chemotherapy
would. This is just a guess, little indication that the results of the study
are due to bias ... There's another problem with these sorts of studies.
Cancer takes a long time to develop. In fact, in the case of prostate
cancer, we know that it takes 30 or more years between initiation of cancer
and a clinical diagnosis"
-
We're so good at medical studies that most of them are wrong -
arstechnica.com, 3/3/10 - "by the time you
reach 61 tests, there's a 95 percent chance that you'll get a significant
result at random. And, let's face it—researchers want to see a significant
result, so there's a strong, unintentional bias towards trying different
tests until something pops out ... we simply have to
recognize the problem and communicate it with the public, so that people
don't leap to health conclusions each time a new population study gets
published. Medical researchers recognize the value of replication, and they
don't start writing prescriptions based on the latest gene expression
study—they wait for the individual genes to be validated. As we wait for any
sort of reform to arrive, caution, and explaining to the public the reasons
for this caution, seems like the best we can do"
-
Are clinical trials short-changing us? - Nutra USA, 12/11/08 -
"The same questions jump to my mind all the time:
Where’s the control group? Are the people in the placebo group actually
taking supplements on the side? How long is the latency period for the
disease in question? ... Let’s address these one by one: ..."
-
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - PLoS Medicine, 8/05
-
New Campaign Focuses On Experiments - Intelihealth, 4/15/02
- What Should You Know Before Entering a Clinical Trial? - WebMD, 7/23/01
Related Sites:
70817
|
