In this post, AVN presents a blog based on a story based on a published article - a pretty sloppy way of reporting, and it's no surprise here that they get the message completely twisted around. The journal article (What's in placebos: who knows? Analysis of randomized, controlled trials, Golomb BA, Erickson LC, Koperski S, Sack D, Enkin M, Howick J, Ann Intern Med, 2010 vol. 153 (8) pp. 532-5) referred to is a fine display of researchers keeping themselves honest. Basically, they looked at a large number of journal articles and found that researchers hadn't listed the ingredients in the placebos used. No big deal really. Typical good example of sound research. Perhaps people will be more careful in the future. Perhaps some studies have been influenced because of a physiological effect of ingredients in the placebo.
But no - AVN states... “all those studies must now be completely thrown out as utterly non-scientific”. All of them? Really? No – not at all. As the authors say themselves “our analysis does not clarify the frequency with which placebo constituents may influence internal validity, replication, or cross-trial comparisons”. Nothing has to be thrown out at all, and by not reading and appreciating the original article, AVN has done themselves and their readers a gross disservice. That was NOT their conclusion, and AVN's final paragraph misrepresents the paper. So does the introduction for that matter. No clinical trials whatsoever have been invalidated by this study. None what-so-ever. Nor is this proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy, and anyone who claims it is doesn't know anything about scientific method.
If I was responsible for this blog, I’d hang my head in shame.
No comments:
Post a Comment