Acupuncture appears to show results.

[Phytotherapist]

It was not a personal attack on Rolfe but on her ideas. My impression was that she attacked me claiming that I'm unfamiliar with the qualifications of members of this Forum.

When I set up a Saanen goat-farm after making the business plan I asked the expertise of an experienced Vet and then a second opinion of a second Vet. I just asked questions because they were the experts and I acted accordingly to their advice because their knoledge in this field is much better than mine and I am (was) almost a quack in this field. I didn't say on a general term that Rolfe is uneducated but only in this particular field. Rolfe is certainly much more educated in Vet Med than I am and I'm am aware of it. I will never pretend to know more than Rolfe in Vet Med. On the other hand, I'm an MD a a Pharmacology specialist, working and researching in the field of Phytotherapy for 40 years, and then someone unqualified (ignorant) in this field pretends to know more than I doand sentences that Phytotherapy doesn't work. This is unacceptable for me.

I repeat my earlier statement: I think Prof Facco isby far much better qualified in his field of competence than anyone in this Forum (me included). If Rolfe or someone else can prove to me that she/he more qualified than Prof Facco than I'm willing to pay for his summer holidays on the Adriatic coast (where I live). By the way, why did't she write the names of Ivor, The Atheist, Dr. Imago, Robinson etc.?

I agree that personal attacks are in bad taste, so stop making them.

I can't say which company because I have still a working relationship and a contractual agreement not to use the company's name outside the imposed limits.

It is true that the Italian political situation was bad but with yesterdays elections things will, probably, change (for better or for worse). The third richest man in Italy (Berluscony) is the winner and communist finally disappeared from our Parlamient. I wonder if this happend in the US (with Bill Gates). Would it be a better or a worse Country?

I live and work in Italy which is not the ideal place but I prefer this than to live in a country where nurses are allowed to prescribe, where anyone has the right to open a practice and practise almost anything (and I'll stop here because I have a great respect for that Monarchy).

 

[BillyJoe]

I sometimes wonder if they could avoid all these problems with flawed clinical trials if researchers were required to submit their research protocol before actually conducting their clinical trials.

The part I bolded is what I think is responsible for problems, such as the one in this study.
There does seem to be quite a bit of variation in experience and training in research design among those performing clinical research.

Is there a solution to this problem?
Are the scientific and medical communities motivated enough and capable enough of fixing it?
Will it ever be the case that researchers will actually be required to be qualified to do research. Does that seem too much to ask?

From my point of view, it would be great if you could have some confidence that the reading the abstract of a trial is going give you some useful information without always having to spend time going through the details of the original report dissecting it for errors which would invalidate the conclusions contained in the abstract.

 

[Rolfe]

Phytotherapist, if you really wanted to know, you could have followed the thread where JJM, Wilsontown, Pipirr and myself wrote a letter to the journal Homeopathy criticising a paper it had published, which culminated in links to the published letter (full names and pack drill) and to the author's "right of reply" - which was in effect an admission that we were right. Unfortunately, although we included our degrees and diplomas on the letter as submitted, these were not included in the publication, which seems to be journal policy.

Therefore, assertions that we are uneducated and unable to make valid criticism of published papers is simply not true.

Rolfe.

 

[BillyJoe]

By the way, why did't she write the names of Ivor, The Atheist, Robinson...

You are joking, right!!!

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I live and work in Italy which is not the ideal place but I prefer this than to live in a country where nurses are allowed to prescribe, where anyone has the right to open a practice and practise almost anything (and I'll stop here because I have a great respect for that Monarchy).

It was all going so well until you said this last bit.

(IIRC it takes $1 billion to become president of the US, so Bill and Warren could run the place for the next 400 years.)

 

[JJM]

And three, who or what is "Dr. Mercola"?

Rolfe.

Rolfe, that defies a simple answer, my best try is: Joseph Mercola is an American osteopath who has never met any quackery too stupid to promote. He has a web site and at least one book.

 

[Rolfe]

It was not a personal attack on Rolfe but on her ideas. My impression was that she attacked me claiming that I'm unfamiliar with the qualifications of members of this Forum.

You were the one who claimed that "I've carefully checked the qualifications of all the people involved in this research and they are certainly more qualified than any member of this Forum."

You did not qualify this sweeping statement by any mention of "in phytotherapy". You claimed that these quacks "are certainly more qualified than any member of this Forum", full stop. I invited you to provide evidence for that statement, by which you would have to demonstrate that you are "familiar with the qualifications of every member of the JREF Forum, and so know that these quacks are all "more qualified" than anyone here."

If you call that an attack, then that is your interpretation.

Nobody forced you to make this comparison. You could merely have observed that (in your opinion) the authors of the paper were very well qualified in whatever field you thought was appropriate. Nothing wrong with that, though it might be subject to factual challenge.

However, you chose to claim something you could only know if you were familiar with the qualifications of everyone on this forum. I invite you again to demonstrate this familiarity, and then to show that these quacks are "more qualified" than everyone here.

Your claim, you back it up. If you can't, my "idea" that you are "unfamiliar with the qualifications of members of this Forum" would appear to be bang on the mark.

Rolfe.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

Is there a solution to this problem?
Are the scientific and medical communities motivated enough and capable enough of fixing it?
Will it ever be the case that researchers will actually be required to be qualified to do research. Does that seem too much to ask?

From my point of view, it would be great if you could have some confidence that the reading the abstract of a trial is going give you some useful information without always having to spend time going through the details of the original report dissecting it for errors which would invalidate the conclusions contained in the abstract.

Exactly what I've been thinking for quite some time now.

 

[Rolfe]

Rolfe, that defies a simple answer, my best try is: Joseph Mercola is an American osteopath who has never met any quackery too stupid to promote. He has a web site and at least one book.

Ooh, but you altered my text when you quoted it! The lower-case "d" was deliberate, as a direct quote from Phytotherapist.

He seems to have no idea how many typing errors, spelling errors, grammatical errors and stylistic infelicities are contained within the text he writes. This would be of little consequence of course, so long as he was comprehensible, if he did not state

I learned how to evaluate peole according to what they write so I'm can certainly note a difference between a well educated person and not.

I'm afraid, then, by his own criteria, he's not doing so good.

And before JJM starts, "Sorry, I should not have said that." But I did anyway.

Rolfe.

 

[JJM]

It was not a personal attack on Rolfe but on her ideas. My impression was that she attacked me claiming that I'm unfamiliar with the qualifications of members of this Forum.

No, you said that Rolfe was uneducated, that is a personal attack. You are unfamiliar with the qualifications of forum members, as we are unfamiliar with yours, that is not a personal attack. That is why we want to discuss publicly available literature.

 

[Rolfe]

.... and then someone unqualified (ignorant) in this field pretends to know more than I doand sentences that Phytotherapy doesn't work. This is unacceptable for me.

If you're talking about me here, I have no recollection at all of making any statement whatsoever about phytotherapy in this thread. I do believe I may have said some things about acupuncture, the subject of the thread, but not about phytotherapy. Nor did I say anything about knowing more than you "doand". I merely asked you to substantiate your claim that the authors of that paper are "more qualified than any member of this Forum".

This you have singularly failed to do.

I repeat my earlier statement: I think Prof Facco isby far much better qualified in his field of competence than anyone in this Forum (me included). If Rolfe or someone else can prove to me that she/he more qualified than Prof Facco than I'm willing to pay for his summer holidays on the Adriatic coast (where I live).

Moving the goal posts again. "In his field of competence." That was not part of your original assertion, which merely stated that he was "more qualified". Even now, you obfuscate. Should this hypothetical forum member be more qualified in his chosen field than Prof Facco is in his? Or in Prof Facco's own field?

Not playing this game. Either substantiate your assertion, or withdraw it.

By the way, why did't she write the names of Ivor, The Atheist, Dr. Imago, Robinson etc.?

Because I have no idea what their qualifications are, so their names are irrelevant in this context. I have a pretty fair idea of the qualifications of the people I named.

I agree that personal attacks are in bad taste, so stop making them.

Including sweeping generalisations which belittle every member of this Forum.

I can't say which company because I have still a working relationship and a contractual agreement not to use the company's name outside the imposed limits.

So we have even less evidence for your own claims to qualifications than you have for ours.

It is true that the Italian political situation was bad but with yesterdays elections things will, probably, change (for better or for worse). The third richest man in Italy (Berluscony) is the winner and communist finally disappeared from our Parlamient. I wonder if this happend in the US (with Bill Gates). Would it be a better or a worse Country?

I live and work in Italy which is not the ideal place but I prefer this than to live in a country where nurses are allowed to prescribe, where anyone has the right to open a practice and practise almost anything (and I'll stop here because I have a great respect for that Monarchy).

Ah, the political situation in my country is getting better by the day.

Rolfe.

 

[fls]

Is there a solution to this problem?
Are the scientific and medical communities motivated enough and capable enough of fixing it?
Will it ever be the case that researchers will actually be required to be qualified to do research. Does that seem too much to ask?

Generally, the opportunities and the ability go hand in hand. And I think the evidence-based medicine movement has helped in that it gives the average reader the skills to recognize poor study design. And this study was published in Headache and not the New England Journal of Medicine, which allows for it to have the impact it deserves.

I wrote from the perspective of starting with performing good research. And I agree that it would be preferable for it all to be good. But if you come at it from the other direction - that of the consumer (the average doctor or health professional) - at least we have a way to give a lower consideration to lower quality research. It is published in low impact venues, it fails tests that lead to it even being read (more on that below), and if read it fails tests that would lead to its adoption.

From my point of view, it would be great if you could have some confidence that the reading the abstract of a trial is going give you some useful information without always having to spend time going through the details of the original report dissecting it for errors which would invalidate the conclusions contained in the abstract.

It definitely gives you useful information. It tells you whether it is worth your while to consider going through the details of the original report. It may give you enough information to reject the study outright as unlikely to give valid results. For example, the screening questions for a therapy study are "was the assignment of patients to treatments randomized" and "were all of the patients who entered the trial properly accounted for and attributed at its conclusion". One could decide, based on failing the second question, that this study was unlikely to give valid results and simply pass on it. However, it might not get you off the hook in those situations we often have at the JREF forums, where someone prefers to consider the study potentially valid anyway.

Linda

 

[Jeff Corey]

Is there a solution to this problem?
Are the scientific and medical communities motivated enough and capable enough of fixing it?
Will it ever be the case that researchers will actually be required to be qualified to do research. Does that seem too much to ask?

From my point of view, it would be great if you could have some confidence that the reading the abstract of a trial is going give you some useful information without always having to spend time going through the details of the original report dissecting it for errors which would invalidate the conclusions contained in the abstract.

In US universities and other funded research sites we must have an Institutional Research Board (IRB) to vet and approve all studies involving people. We also have one to do the same with nonhuman animals.
Most concerns are with ethical treatment of subjects/participants, but questions of adequate research design often arise.
And, as an aside, I don't think that there is any such thing as "Phakotherapy".

 

[JJM]

{snip} I'm an MD a a Pharmacology specialist, working and researching in the field of Phytotherapy for 40 years, and then someone unqualified (ignorant) in this field pretends to know more than I doand sentences that Phytotherapy doesn't work. This is unacceptable for me. {snip}

So, choose a few herbs and show us the quality publications that support their use.

It may be best for you to start a new thread, claiming medical value for herbs.

 

[Normal Dude]

I'd like to clarify something phytotherapist:

In these statements (quotes from this thread),

I accept these results because I've carefully checked the qualifications of all the people involved in this research and they are certainly more qualified than any member of this Forum.

...

It is very easy to find the qualifications of all MDs working in Italy. I checked the qualifications of them all and that of 9 MD School Profs of the top Italian universities that have endorsed the research and, of course, I've read all the papers.

...

I repeat my earlier statement: I think Prof Facco isby far much better qualified in his field of competence than anyone in this Forum (me included).

you give the impression that the findings of this trial should be accepted solely on the qualifications for the people who ran it, as opposed to the merits of the study itself.
Would this be an accurate description of your position?

 

[Phytotherapist]

Rolfe - I said before that if you are more qualified in the medical and pharmacological field than Prof Facco I would invite you for a free holiday in Italy. I'm so convinced you're not that I'm offering you 100,000£ (or even more) if you could prove you're more qualified than Prof Facco in the field of medical science.

I'm aware of my grammatical and other errors in English. The winner of the Italian elections Mr. Berlusconi barely knows a couple of words in English but has 10 billion US$.

I also wonder why some people on this thread weren't so quick to defend Dr. Nancy Malik when she was subject to personal attacks( and insults) as well as attacks on her mother and her country. I defended her although my opinions are totally different.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Normal Dude,
Apparently he/she does because there was no response to the questions about the lack of appropriate blinding or controls. But an alleged CEO of a Medicina Grande company should know those things? Tu capisci?

 

[Phytotherapist]

Certo che capisco!

 

[Jeff Corey]

Certo che capisco!

Va'a fare in culo.

 

[fls]

I repeat my earlier statement: I think Prof Facco isby far much better qualified in his field of competence than anyone in this Forum (me included).

So if he is not ignorant, what excuse is there for conducting a study that was not blinded (even the patients were not really blinded) and did not include an appropriate control group?

Linda