Related articles: Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies, Grappling with uncertainty about the Marshall Protocol, Mistaking correlation for causation
This is an old revision of the document!
Related articles: Differences between in vitro, in vivo, and in silico studies, Grappling with uncertainty about the Marshall Protocol, Mistaking correlation for causation
Though well-grounded in molecular and clinical data, the conclusions offered by Marshall ProtocolA curative medical treatment for chronic inflammatory disease. Based on the Marshall Pathogenesis. 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 FoundationNon-profit foundation dedicated to exploring a pathogenesis and therapy for chronic disease. (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.
Using statistical inferences, John P. A. Ioannidis concluded in the prestigious journal PLoS Medicine that half of published research must be wrong.1) In grappling with a confusing study or even a field of study, it's seriously worth considering how Ioannidis could be right.
What assumptions do researchers routinely make that prevent them from embracing the science behind the MP? The following is a list of hypotheses about medical research that explains some of the hurdles that some have had to overcome thus far in accepting the MP.
The process by which studies are designed and research is interpreted and shared has a number of liabilities.
For those convinced that science is self-correcting, and progresses in a forward direction over time, we offer only discouragement. We had anticipated that as time passed, citations of the original articles would become more negative, and these articles would be less cited than other articles published in the same journal and year. In fact, support for the original articles remained undiminished over time and perhaps even increased, and we found no evidence of a decline in citations for any of the original articles following publication of the rebuttals…. [A major news report] trumpeting “Fish stocks eaten to extinction by 2050″ (Leake 2010), based on a highly contentious projection… [fails] to mention any of the 11 rebuttals that question this projection, but it misses the later consensus paper by the same author and many of his critics that reverses the earlier projection of collapse, and instead expects rebuilding to occur in 5 of 10 well studied ecosystems.
Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman, The Pleasure of Finding Things Out (1999)
Ioannidis et al.'s 2008 Science analysis shows the long length of time that passes between discovery and translation into common practice. This work also shows how after a number of interventions supported by high-profile clinical studies, subsequent evidence from larger and/or better studies contradicts the earlier work.18)
— Sallie Q 08.19.2017 removed erroneous links (are usually but not always, to newspapers)
The Emergence of Translational Epidemiology: From Scientific Discovery to Population Health ImpactAm J Epidemiol 1 September 2010: 517-524.
Traversing the Valley of Death: A Guide to Assessing Prospects for Translational Success
Sci Transl Med 9 December 2009: 10cm9.
Translational informatics: enabling high-throughput research paradigms
Physiol. Genomics 6 November 2009: 131-140.
Evaluating the causal relevance of diverse risk markers: horizontal systematic review
BMJ 5 November 2009: b4265.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/321/5894/1298.full.pdf
http://www.sciencemag.org/site/includefiles/help/holmes_sla_stm_ppt.pdf
A systematic examination of the citation of prior research in reports of randomized, controlled trials.
Robinson KA, Goodman SN. Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jan 4;154(1):50-5
Abstract BACKGROUND: A randomized, controlled trial (RCT) should not be started or interpreted without accounting for evidence from preceding RCTs addressing the same question. Research has suggested that evidence from prior trials is often not accounted for in reports of subsequent RCTs. OBJECTIVE: To assess the extent to which reports of RCTs cite prior trials studying the same interventions. DESIGN: Meta-analyses published in 2004 that combined 4 or more trials were identified; within each meta-analysis, the extent to which each trial report cited the trials that preceded it by more than 1 year was assessed. MEASUREMENTS: The proportion of prior trials that were cited (prior research citation index), the proportion of the total participants from prior trials that were in the cited trials (sample size citation index), and the absolute number of trials cited were calculated. RESULTS: 227 meta-analyses were identified, comprising 1523 trials published from 1963 to 2004. The median prior research citation index was 0.21 (95% CI, 0.18 to 0.24), meaning that less than one quarter of relevant reports were cited. The median sample size citation index (0.24 [CI, 0.21 to 0.27]) was similar, suggesting that larger trials were not selectively cited. Of the 1101 RCTs that had 5 or more prior trials to cite, 254 (23%) cited no prior RCTs and 257 (23%) cited only 1. The median number of prior cited trials was 2, which did not change as the number of citable trials increased. The mean number of preceding trials cited by trials published after 2000 was 2.4, compared with 1.5 for those published before 2000 (P < 0.001). LIMITATION: The investigators could not ascertain why prior trials were not cited, and noncited trials may have been taken into account in the trial design and proposal stages. CONCLUSION: In reports of RCTs published over 4 decades, fewer than 25% of preceding trials were cited, comprising fewer than 25% of the participants enrolled in all relevant prior trials. A median of 2 trials was cited, regardless of the number of prior trials that had been conducted. Research is needed to explore the explanations for and consequences of this phenomenon. Potential implications include ethically unjustifiable trials, wasted resources, incorrect conclusions, and unnecessary risks for trial participants.