Should I try and become a Nurse in a Naturopathic Clinic or a Naturopathic Doctor? - page 5
I am a 21 year old female and have been taking my prerequisites for Nursing. I felt very passionate about my choice, I do really enjoy caring for people and helping people. However, as I got further into my studies, talked to... Read More
- 2Jun 19 by AmyRN303Quote from cecej435Good lord, I meant to hit "quote" and hit "like" instead.You need to go back and study the true history behind conventional medicine. When was it started? Why was it started? Let me simplify it for you, conventional medicine was started simply for monetary purposes. It was more profitable to keep people sick enough to just receive treatment rather than cure their disease completely. The government/medical industry has suppressed over 6000 invented cures that could have saved humanity from every disease out there including cancer. Do you really think they want to find a cure? You are so gullible.
Do you have some sort of evidence of this? It's very conspiracy theory/Natural News sounding to me.
- 1Jul 1 by KRVRNI see the point about the govt and medical industry suppressing a cancer cure. There's probably more money to be made in a whole treatment regime than in a single cure. But I simply canNOT believe that that knowledge wouldn't leak to the public. A cure for male pattern baldness, maybe. But cancer? No, someone would blab.
- 0I read evidence-based medical articles with a grain of salt, as it is. Some articles that helped lead to my skepticism are below.
1) A paper from the Journal of Clinical Oncology that describes how the standards for lung cancer clinical trials have slipped, such that drug trials that don't conclusively show a benefit are still touted as having positive results.
"disquieting is the tendency of investigators to impute clinically meaningful value to progressively lower survival benefits."
"A more worrisome trend is the recent increase in the number of trials deemed to be positive despite their failure to meet a preplanned primary statistical end point. This tendency was most evident post 2000, after which a substantial percentage of trials were said to be positive on the basis of a nonsignificant trend in the primary end point, an improvement in a secondary trial end point (eg, toxicity), or a claim of noninferiority in trials that were not designed to assess noninferiority.10 Although many factors could account for this trend, undoubtedly a desire to salvage something positive out of an otherwise negative study played a major role."
JCO : Journal of Clinical Oncology
- 0Continuing my comment above...
I tried to locate an article I read in the Wall Street Journal about bias and insider dealings between researchers and peer reviewers from earlier this year, but I wasn't able to find it. I did, however, find this older WSJ article about pharmaceutical company-paid ghostwriters writing scientific journal articles that support and promote the companies' drug products:
At Medical Journals, Writers Paid by Industry Play Big Role - WSJ
The below Scientific American article reports on cases of research fraud perpetuated by an anesthesiologist. He was funded by Pfizer and published multiple research studies on the efficacy of their COX2 inhibitors for treating post-op pain. Turns out his studies were made up and he never even did the research:
A Medical Madoff: Anesthesiologist Faked Data in 21 Studies - Scientific American
What I'm getting at is that even the gold standard of medical practice, evidence-based research, is not that perfect or pristine. As health professionals, we would do best for our patients by maintaining a high level of scrutiny of the information we receive, whether we favor allopathic or naturopathic modalities.
- 0Sorry, one more observation about evidence-based research --
If you look at the highest, most scientific type of clinical research -- the randomized clinical trial -- you'll notice that the studies always compare X treatment to Y treatment. Essentially, the studies are picking the better treatment among the two choices (sometimes more, but never more than a handful of options) and promoting that treatment as the champion. Therefore, the study could conclude that since Treatment X performed better, it is the superior treatment and should be recommended in practice guidelines. However, it doesn't consider Treatment A or Treatment B because those weren't part of the study. Who knows -- maybe A or B would have performed better had they been included in the trial. Just because X performed better in a study of X and Y treatments, doesn't mean it's necessarily better than ALL the other treatments out there.
- 0Sep 10 by FunctionalNPI found that Wall Street Journal article on the bias in peer review. Here's an example of one of the ways that scientific researchers can get shady:
"Both studies were published without a review of the data used to reach the finding. No one has been able to reproduce the results of either paper, including the EPA, which did expensive, time-consuming reviews of the pesticide brought about by the published claims. As the agency investigated, it couldn't even use those papers about atrazine's alleged effects because the research they were based on didn't meet the criteria for legitimate scientific work. The authors refused to hand over data that led them to their claimed results—which meant no one could run the same computer program and match their results."
Hank Campbell: The Corruption of Peer Review Is Harming Scientific Credibility - WSJ