Research: Third of study results don't hold up
- 07-14-2005, 09:53 AM
- 07-14-2005, 12:14 PM
Good find. I figured this to be true about studies, since there are already so many contradicting ones out there, makes you think that many that seem to be straight forward may be proven wrong in the future.
- 07-14-2005, 03:00 PM
irony, a research study on research studies, claiming 1/3 of research studies, aren't true.
say that 5 times.
07-14-2005, 04:15 PM
the thing is that most people read a research study and take it for the gospel but you have to look at the overall creditability for naturalistic studies (case studies) or validity of empirical studies.... and most people until they are shown how to do it... think WOW this is great, especially if it confirms a notion that they already hold close to them. THE PRESS are the world's worst for doing this..
07-14-2005, 09:27 PM
What is it my intro chemical engineering prof. used to say? There are only theories. They can only be disproved.
07-14-2005, 10:32 PM
lol how true. So according to them, there is a 1/3 chance that the fraction they determined, 1/3, is incorrect.Originally Posted by Pioneer
07-15-2005, 06:54 PM
Cool find, but nothing new. In any body of research you're going to find the majority of research indicates one thing, but there are always studies that either don't confirm that one thing or completely contradict it. People don't understand science is a process. Over time the more info you get the more solid certain things become. The news media are big into this mistake, but I already figured them a long time ago to be a bunch of idiots. What pisses me off is when doctors can't understand the process. Medicine is a practice, but it's supposed to be heavily based on science and a lot of doctors tend to take the one study view of things. That pisses me off more than a layman not getting it right off the bat.
I can't tell you how many times I've argued the safety of steroid usage with people who are or claim to be doctors, or in the medical field in some capacity, and think that steroids are lethal because one case study from the seventies showed a possibility of liver damage after prolonged use, or some similar claim. There's also a tendency for reinforcement. People believe studies that confirm preconceived notions and dismiss studies that contradict them, regardless of which study is more sound or where the general trend of research points. A recent example that sort of fits into this is that doctor featured in the Real Sports episode piece on steroids, the one who argues they are unsafe. He claims long term studies on steroid use would be too dangerous to undertake, but then he's also cited studies in front of congress showing increased usage among kids that are based on self reporting. Somehow the same type of study done on existing steroid users wouldn't add anything of value to the body of research on these substances. Probably because he knows damn well such a study wouldn't swing the trend of research where he'd want it to go.
That kind of study while inherently biased would most likely show a dearth of the type of long term health problems people like him have been claiming exist for years. Ergo, don't do it, and especially don't do it under even more controlled conditions by administering doses and monitoring subjects where the results would be even more relevant. If that happened and no one died at the end of the study or showed any signs of long term health problems, the same media follies would leave steroid prohibitionists with their dicks swinging in the wind trying to justify years of fining and imprisoning people.
07-18-2005, 02:21 AM
Way O/T, but...
TheUsual, what is up with that guy in your avatar... Is that you? You seem, um, bloated...Yet you have abs, kind of like Ronnie in his less flattering pictures... <---arlowf gets his ass kicked.
07-18-2005, 09:35 AM
What he should have said was there are only hypothesises...theories are a tad harder to disprove...Originally Posted by jmh80
07-18-2005, 04:41 PM
The problem with medical studies is that drug companies decide which studies to publish if they are done in-house (hence the vioxx debacle). Studies with positive results tend to get picked up by journals. Editors do not want to lose advertising money by publishing too much bad news.
Similar Forum Threads
- By ArnoldIsMyIdol in forum SupplementsReplies: 11Last Post: 11-21-2011, 03:01 AM
- By rms80 in forum Company PromotionsReplies: 26Last Post: 09-02-2010, 03:19 PM
- By rms80 in forum SupplementsReplies: 5Last Post: 11-24-2009, 02:26 PM
- By yeahright in forum Training ForumReplies: 0Last Post: 06-06-2006, 02:19 AM