deltaforce said...
@ Burli,
I have no idea what research job you held in US govt office, but your post very much indicates that you don't really have much idea. Since you worked in research job, you should know how to search Pubmed and find papers with human subjects.
BTW, your last line is way out of the line, if you know something called as 'retractions'. There is a website for that, retractionwatch.com You should really look into the process of retraction.
@deltaforce: I had 3 healingwell windows
open at once; trying it cross reference a user's posts. In the search window it takes you directly to that post and I no longer see it here OR posted my response in the wrong thread (make sense?).
I no longer see that user's listing of several http websites (not sure if that post was deleted or I mixed another).My apologies
At that time I went to the first of several studies that user (not your starting one; did not read it until I noticed your respnse) listed and it took me to the NIH site and the paper was weak - a small study on UC-induced mice showing reduced inflammation. From that website I tried to dig deeper into the study or any studies on humans. After wasting time in rabbit holes, pressed for time I hastily posted a caution to those here. If you go to credible health sites on IBD, talk to Gi's you get the same conclusion. The evidence is anecdotal. Your first post I missed (got in a hurry to go to work). My apologies. So instead of deleting my thread and having everything else after out of context I'll follow:
We get several similar threads so I believe I was searching a specific user (not you) and noticed that user's post had listed the many, many http's. In a rush to get to work I felt the need to caution folks drawing conclusions from the titles of papers and weak trials on mice.
As to retractions - I no longer see a real need to address that here other than to say I've seen world renowned experts (highly regarded in their unique field) disagree yet publish and not press each other while others may not know enough to discredit them. That vets out in my field of space flight and aerospace as we have many review 'gates' and tests to pass (ever greater $'s, time and community acceptance). So, I draw that to a paper published, say, by one researcher in my agency (could be DOD, academia or private sector as well). It may be published yet insignificant enough to give evidence to risk great $'s of damage or human life (so often times we cannot chase all papers to verify results then take further action to get them retracted). I draw equivalence to mice or small clinical trials - they have the proper disclaimers (but often those are ignored): talk to your doctor before using the results of that type to treat, diagnose or cure yourself...in my business we have similar disclaimers on published papers which could be overlooked esp if results are taken out of context...
Thanks for pointed me to PubMed - that's a great help. I recall that but forgot about
it.
When you still today go to supplement, naturals and diet websites they refer to 'studies show' their product helps UC (and other problems). I was merely cautioning folks that those really don't mean anything but more research is needed. Still, ppl go out and use them.
You point to a relevant and interesting study starting with 60 people Significant would involve thousands; but that's very expensive and this is a great start and great thread.
I'm translating research and development into what I have seen in my field of expertise. It's true that some have published papers and eventually those get retracted (from my knowledge but cannot prove always). We certainly have our checks in place before acceptance, further research, development, testing, larger and more expensive tests and eventually final certification). Medical community has their own (FDA, etc.) which I realize why so expensive and so many hurdles before approval as someone has to sign up that it's safe. Many discredit the FDA but there is a reason it has so many barriers to cross. It's just for one of the reasons I caution. Pulling a study which is even published in a respected journal
opens it for reading by a wider audience of experts who may later discredit that very 'evidence'. The gov't can rarely afford mistakes the private sector makes, My agency's mistakes are widely publicized thus we take extra caution.
So, even published medical studies which begins to gain ground are later found invalid.
As for having to vet through conferences - I stand corrected. I didn't aim to imply this was the only way. It's one starting point but travel to those conferences takes funds (which ours gets cut heavily) and attendees may not be those who need to actually see and approve (the audience may not be the best peers to evaluate.
Thanks.
I could have deleted the post. Now, I'll look for where that post was which just listed a bunch of studies on rats (err mice)...hum