Scientific papers, can they be trusted? (1 Viewer)

[Grousemore]

Alan,
a physiological mechanism for vit C affecting the body's reaction to cold virus is a possible explanation for it's effectiveness, but not proof of the same. Looking at the papers it seems apparent that Vit C is effective in some cases but not others (with some disagreement over exactly where the crossover occurs).
It's effective at 'megadoses', not at lower doses
it's effective given prophlactically , but not therapeutically,
it's effective given to children, not to adults
it's effective used at high altitudes,but not at sea level
it's effective in cold temperatures, not at normal temperatures
it's effective for people engaged in sustained exercise, not for resting people
it's effective at reducing the severity of symptoms, but not at reducing the incidence of infection

Given all this conflicting evidence, don't you think it's reasonable that some scientists still question the *value* of vit C as a cold treatment. It might make a difference in some cases, and we now have a possible explanantion as to why it might make a difference, but the evidence is there that for many people it's not worth using, and that's why the controversy remains, not because scientists are refusing to listen to the truth.

James

p.s. sorry if people think this is off-topic, but I think it serves as a useful enough model for the topic, and clearly Alan does also, as he introduced it.

Most interesting evidence, the only point I have experience of is the 'megadose' one, in my case 1000mg per day.
Other than that, I only know it works for me and several people I know, which is hardly scientific!

 

[DJ Sideboard]

Interesting stuff about Vit C, I've never found it the slightest help myself!.

I've been told (by a Pharmacist in the Sideboard clan) that quaffing tablets of the stuff is rather pointless as it gets flushed through your system far too quickly to have much affect......

 

[walwyn]

I thought the main use of Vit C nowadays was to bulk up heroine, amphetamine, etc.

 

[Edward woodwood]

yes Walwyn

that and brickdust!

Tim

 

[mcdowella]

Note what Jurek said about the need for experiments. Health studies have been hamstrung by the problems of getting real experiments, where you decide at random to get some experimental units to undergo the treatment and get some to become controls. This runs into loads of ethical and other problems when your experimental units are people, but without it you have problems working out whether X caused Y or Y caused X or Z caused X and Y. Are people who eat fruit healthy because they eat fruit, or do people who eat fruit tend to do other things that make them healthy? Another problem with health studies is that people could do 20 studies, find one that passed the magic threshold of p < 0.05 confidence by pure chance, and then publish it (in drug studies they are now telling people to register all their experiments beforehand, and made the data available regardless of result).

I'd say that there is a spectrum of reliability with one end mathematical proofs and the other end something like parapsychology, and most of us have a feel for what is reliable and what is not - if nothing else by noticing that maths, physics, and engineering lead to white or black boxes you buy in the high street and that pretty much work as advertised, whereas health studies lead to newspaper headlines that tend to contradict last year's newspaper headlines.

The catch is, where do e.g. the arguments of the RSPB about wind farms or whatever go on this spectrum? Good reason for the BTO to continue build up a reputation for themselves as providers of scientific research, not a campaigning organisation.

 

[citrinella]

Hi Malky,

Afraid I've got to say that even peer-reviewed papers in reputable journals need to be taken with at least a pinch of salt. I work supporting medical research so I will draw a couple of instances from that area.

Someone mentioned the Lancet, the most highly rated medical publication in Britain. Not so very long ago it issued an apology for publishing a paper by a Dr.Wakefield rubbishing the MMR vaccine. Apparently it had only just come to light that Dr. Wakefield had not disclosed his interests in commercial organisations intending to produce a competitor to the MMR vaccine. So the peer review process failed prior to publication. You can say that this was just one instance, but the effects have been extremely dangerous with MMR vaccination rates plummetting to levels which apparently leave us open to "epidemic".

There has been much discussion in the British Medical Journal, the second most highly rated medical journal in the UK, about publication bias. There is serious concern that only positive results get published, that studies which find "it doesn't work" are not interesting enough to editors and cannot get published. This has prompted calls for studies to be peer reviewed and publication decisions made before they are ever conducted - i.e. when the results cannot be predicted. This issue crops up every now and then, and is far from dead.

That said, peer-review of papers is probably the best system active at the moment, even if it has serious weaknesses.

Mike.

 

[jurek]

Another problem with health studies is that people could do 20 studies, find one that passed the magic threshold of p < 0.05 confidence by pure chance, and then publish it (in drug studies they are now telling people to register all their experiments beforehand, and made the data available regardless of result).

This is called "publication bias" and is one case where rules of scientific publications can fail. Basically, nobody wants to publish negative results. So only positive examples are reported. This leads to a kind of self-proving hypothesis.

However, this is very rare, not least because as soon as the idea becomes better known, somebody already can make publicity by refuting the idea. So his negative results become published and things return to normality.

I just thought that somebody can be ill and wonder about report of new drugs:

Medical studies (eg. about some new drug in some disease) are conducted in several steps. First, there are studies on human cells or animals. If these show that drug works, then come "Phase I" studies on small sample of people, to find mostly if the drug is not toxic. Then come "Phase II" studies on bigger sample. The come "Phase III" studies on a big sample of patients, which are final proof that a drug works. The whole process takes at least 5 years. Before that, no doctor will recommend the drug, although patients can enroll into clinical trials.

A lot of confusion comes from newspapers not reporting which phase of clinical studies was the test. So, basically, every week or two you can read a news "new cure for cancer" and nothing comes out of it.

Also: sometimes you find an old study about important disease in phase I or II with no follow-up. Doctors to which I talked say that this means that the follow-up showed that drug doesn't work, but nobody cared to publish that.

 

[alcedo.atthis]

"As there is (a point I particularly stressed, in fact) a valid scientific reason for the effectiveness of Vitamin C, it is not altogether surprising that some scientists have found this out. So I am perfectly happy to accept your point that scientific opinion is divided."

Give the doubting scientists a spoonfull or two of ascorbic acid, available from any good chemist in powder form, in warm water the next time they have a cold. One of the best old-time cures out.
See what their reaction is then.

Function

• Helps the body cope with physiological and psychological stress
  [*]Assists in the production of red blood cells and haemaglobin
  [*]Improves absorption of iron from foods
  [*]Essential for healthy immune system
  [*]Reduces risk of serious diseases

Considering the above, there must be something in Vit' C that works.

Regards

Malky.

 

[Richard D]

"As there is (a point I particularly stressed, in fact) a valid scientific reason for the effectiveness of Vitamin C, it is not altogether surprising that some scientists have found this out. So I am perfectly happy to accept your point that scientific opinion is divided."

Give the doubting scientists a spoonfull or two of ascorbic acid, available from any good chemist in powder form, in warm water the next time they have a cold. One of the best old-time cures out.
See what their reaction is then.

Function

• Helps the body cope with physiological and psychological stress
  [*]Assists in the production of red blood cells and haemaglobin
  [*]Improves absorption of iron from foods
  [*]Essential for healthy immune system
  [*]Reduces risk of serious diseases

Considering the above, there must be something in Vit' C that works.

Regards

Malky.

Of course if you eat a healthy enough balanced diet you're probably already getting adequate vitamin C levels. Perhaps that's why the evidence on the effectiveness of vitamin C supplements is so mixed, peoples diets vary so much. I suspect that it's also very difficult to measure peoples perceptions of how their symptoms feel, and how much a strain of virus effects any particular individual.

Richard

 

[James Lowther]

Give the doubting scientists a spoonfull or two of ascorbic acid, available from any good chemist in powder form, in warm water the next time they have a cold. One of the best old-time cures out.
See what their reaction is then.

Good job you're around to help Malky, I don't suppose those idiots would ever have thought of that otherwise.
James

 

[Grousemore]

The next time you think you're getting a cold, ie usual initial symptons, take 1000mg of vitaminC (preferably Redoxon effervescent tablets) daily and the cold won't develop.

You'll thereby be saved the inevitable miserable mucous nightmare and also avoid the cost of the ineffectual palliatives such as Night Nurse, Vic and other such nostrums.

 

[John o'Sullivan]

I don't know if vit c has an effect on colds or not, I am not a virologist. I dso however vaguely remember reading a study that alledged it did not. Epidemiogical studies on populations can demonstrate overall statistical non- correlations that anecdotally appear highly significant. I am reminded however of grandma clampits (the beverly hillbillies) herbal cold remedy which the bank manager got all excited about. He was less impressed when he found that you had to take this daily, retire to bed and in three days the cold would be done.

 

[alcedo.atthis]

"Good job you're around to help Malky, I don't suppose those idiots would ever have thought of that otherwise."

James, this then begs the question, which "idiots" does one refer to??


Regards

Malky

 

[DJ Sideboard]

I've reckon that you can kill colds with sufficient booze and fags.

 

[Katy Penland]

"Good job you're around to help Malky, I don't suppose those idiots would ever have thought of that otherwise."

James, this then begs the question, which "idiots" does one refer to??


Regards

Malky

Gentlemen, let's keep the thread on track, please.

 

[John o'Sullivan]

Gentlemen, let's keep the thread on track, please.

the problem with scientific papers is that individually they are evidence that at particular place a, with population b, given variables c, at a particular time in history, etc etc etc certain things appear to be true. Overall, over time an arguement is developed that given the current state of knowledge belief Z is sustainable. Only by adopting a systemic approach to the analysis of data over time does the truth become apparent until an einstein or a newton or a darwin etc, etc, etc, come along and then we start again.

to quote (for me a wierd thing to do) Donald Rumsfeld. Although it is a glorious quote
That there are known knowns
there are things we know that we know
There are known unknowns
that is to say there are things that we know we don't know
but there are also unknown unknowns
there are things we don't know we don't know
and each year we discover a few more of those unknown unknowns.
My word s now
To tell you the truth I don't know

 

[alcedo.atthis]

Watched the minister for fisheries talking on the news today re the proposed North Sea area ban on fishing. Interestingly enough, he commented that he had see all the papers from the scientists, and nowhere did it recommend a ban on any percentage of the North Sea. It seems that there had been a manipulation of the data put forward to the European Commissioners, and the proposal is being based on that information.





Regards



Malky, just being curious Katy.

 

[Grousemore]

I've reckon that you can kill colds with sufficient booze and fags.

"Sufficient" is a bit vague, can you stipulate a dosage?

 

[Grousemore]

I don't know if vit c has an effect on colds or not, I am not a virologist.

You don't need to be a virologist, make your own mind up on an empirical basis.
If it doesn't work, there is always the Sideboard family remedy. B :smoke:

 

[helenol]

As an aside, for the past 10+ yrs, the first drink I have every morning without fail is a glass of orange juice. I can't remember the last time I had a cold/sniffle/flu etc. If I do get even the slightest sympton, it lasts for a day, at the most.