Home

Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revision Previous revision
Next revision
Previous revision
Last revision Both sides next revision
home:patients:assessing_literature [10.17.2018]
sallieq [Read more]
home:patients:assessing_literature [09.01.2019]
sallieq [Assessing the published literature]
Line 1: Line 1:
 ====== Assessing the published literature ​ ====== ====== Assessing the published literature ​ ======
  
-<relatedarticle> [[home:​patients:​grappling_uncertainty|Grappling with uncertainty about the Marshall Protocol]] </​article>​+<relatedarticles> [[home:​patients:​grappling_uncertainty|Grappling with uncertainty about the Marshall Protocol]], [[home:​pathogenesis:​vitamind:​correlation|Mistaking correlation for causation]] </​article> ​  ​
  
-Though well-grounded in molecular and clinical data, the conclusions offered by Marshall Protocol researchers are sometimes met with skepticism by clinicians and fellow researchers. Some wonder how the MP science could be valid, given the existence of any of the seemingly contradicting evidence.+Though well-grounded in molecular and clinical data, the conclusions offered by Marshall Protocol researchers are sometimes met with skepticism by clinicians and fellow researchers. Some wonder how the MP science could be valid, given the existence of seemingly contradicting evidence.
  
 Researchers who work with Autoimmunity Research Foundation (ARF) take no special pride in arguing that the nature of chronic disease is different than most clinicians and researchers have imagined. Indeed, it makes matters more difficult: the less familiar a conclusion is, the harder it is to persuade someone of its validity. Researchers who work with Autoimmunity Research Foundation (ARF) take no special pride in arguing that the nature of chronic disease is different than most clinicians and researchers have imagined. Indeed, it makes matters more difficult: the less familiar a conclusion is, the harder it is to persuade someone of its validity.
Line 21: Line 21:
   -[[home:​patients:​assessing_literature:​animal_models|Animal models]] do not always accurately represent human biology. In fact, murine (mouse) models are particularly problematic as the murine Vitamin D Receptor is not analogous to the human Vitamin D Receptor in [[home:​publications:​marshall_days_of_molecular_medicine_2008|some key respects]]. ​   -[[home:​patients:​assessing_literature:​animal_models|Animal models]] do not always accurately represent human biology. In fact, murine (mouse) models are particularly problematic as the murine Vitamin D Receptor is not analogous to the human Vitamin D Receptor in [[home:​publications:​marshall_days_of_molecular_medicine_2008|some key respects]]. ​
   -Only certain bacteria grow in an //​[[.:​assessing_literature:​in_vitro_studies#​in_vitro_studies|in vitro]]// environment. Many fastidious forms of bacteria can only grow in the conditions offered by the human body.   -Only certain bacteria grow in an //​[[.:​assessing_literature:​in_vitro_studies#​in_vitro_studies|in vitro]]// environment. Many fastidious forms of bacteria can only grow in the conditions offered by the human body.
-  -[[home:​pathogenesis:​kochs_postulates|Koch'​s postulates]],​ the theory that a single species of pathogen causes a single disease ​is plainly ​wrong and continues to be embraced, despite strong evidence to the contrary.+  -[[home:​pathogenesis:​kochs_postulates|Koch'​s postulates]],​ the theory that a single species of pathogen causes a single disease ​appears ​wrong but continues to be embraced, despite strong evidence to the contrary.
   -//​[[:​home:​patients:​assessing_literature:​in_vitro_studies#​in_silico_studies|In silico]]// studies are a valid way to model the interactions between molecules and nuclear receptors.   -//​[[:​home:​patients:​assessing_literature:​in_vitro_studies#​in_silico_studies|In silico]]// studies are a valid way to model the interactions between molecules and nuclear receptors.
   -Studies touting a therapy against chronic bacterial infections which doesn'​t demonstrate some manner of [[home:​mp:​immunopathology|immunopathology]],​ or bacterial die-off, are not demonstrating that recovery is possible.   -Studies touting a therapy against chronic bacterial infections which doesn'​t demonstrate some manner of [[home:​mp:​immunopathology|immunopathology]],​ or bacterial die-off, are not demonstrating that recovery is possible.
home/patients/assessing_literature.txt · Last modified: 09.01.2019 by sallieq
© 2015, Autoimmunity Research Foundation. All Rights Reserved.