Comments on: Petition to help stamp out NIH misinformation

By: Malcolm Scott

Malcolm Scott — Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:51:27 +0000

Mike,

“Blog of the Month” no less! Congrats!

I am now (belatedly) a member … not sure about the “good standing” bit though …

One sentence leapt out at me from the ACCORD paper;

“All patients provided written informed consent.”

I doubt many of us would use “informed” in the same way.

Oh yes and;

“This study was not designed to test the components of the intervention strategy.”

Hard to disagree with that one … but they still got it funded anyway!

Cheers,

Malcolm

By: Anne

Anne — Sat, 28 Jun 2008 21:23:20 +0000

Reminds me of one of my most recent visits to the hospital. I am a non-diabetic on metformin for issues pertaining to insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia. I am a low carb eater. In the hospital I was greeted 3 meals a day with a plate of sugar and starch–potatoes, bread, corn, cheerios, muffins, bananas, etc. The protein: (not kidding) sweet & sour chicken or similar (no matter what the meat, it had to be breaded or otherwise dipped in sugar/cornstarch). There was a can of regular pepsi. There was a cup of coffee. I was offered a choice of desserts. This was all supposedly on a diabetic meal plan. (I had to con a cup of cottage cheese or something green out of the nurses from time to time. Apparently I am not supposed to have such fatty things on a diabetic meal plan.)

Needless to say, because I was alternately fasting (read: looking at this junk and suddenly not feeling hungry) and having to eat the stuff they were giving me so as not to starve, my blood sugar (which they insisted on checking daily because they could not believe I was not diabetic “at my weight”) was all over the map. One time the nurse came in after testing me and explained in a calm and cheerful voice that she was ready to give me my insulin shot (“just a teeny bit, you aren’t that high”). My jaw hit the floor. Then I refused to take any such thing until someone could show in my most recent bloodwork that my insulin levels were low.

So, in a nutshell, if this is what they refer to as “intensively targeting blood sugar to near-normal levels,” I can see why it kills. *Facepalm*

Unbelievable. But, unfortunately, what passes for standard medical care in a whole lot of places. Really, really tragic. And they wonder why were in the midst of a diabetes epidemic.

By: Bob

Bob — Thu, 26 Jun 2008 16:05:39 +0000

This reminded me of an article by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick:

http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm3.htm#July%2029

(please forgive me if the link doesn’t come across).

If research has been ‘discredited,’ how can it be rectified? Once one bogus (or just plain incorrect) study has been published, and later studies reference it, are those later studies tracked and re-evaluated also?

Just wondering how the ’system’ works. Dr. Kendrick also has several other articles that cast a critical eye on medical research and publications (He’s also a very engaging writer, too!)

Sadly, once such discredited research makes it into print, it’s pretty much there forever.

A few months ago I read a quote used to substantiate a position an author took in an exchange of views in a prestigious medical journal. The quote was referenced as coming from an obscure, difficult to find government publication. I tracked down the publication and combed it for the quote, but was never able to find it. I contacted the author of the letter in which the quote appeared. He was kind enough to answer my query and honest enough to tell me that he had put the quote together mistakenly – it didn’t actually exist in any form even near the way it was quoted in the journal (with quotation marks and all).

When I Googled the quote, I found it picked up by a number of other authors and referenced the same way. How much of this goes on? Who knows? I’m sure a lot more than we expect.