From: lady@uhunix.uhcc.Hawaii.Edu (Lee Lady)
Subject: APOLOGY
Followup-To: sci.med
Summary: I'm sorry if I misled anyone.  
Keywords: ineffective   empirical research  
Organization: University of Hawaii (Mathematics Dept)
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 1992 02:55:05 GMT

In article <1992Sep4.071629.6492@news.Hawaii.Edu> I write: 
>The September issue of NUTRITION ACTION, published by the Center for
>Science in the Public Interest, has a telephone interview (conducted in
>July) with Richard Wurtman of the Clinical Research Center at MIT.  It
>should be of interest to everyone involved in the undying sci.med
>argument about the FDA, smart drugs, nutritional supplements,
>alternative [as yet] treatments, etc.  I think there's plenty of
>ammunition in the interview for partisans on both sides of this
>argument, although naturally each side will quote selectively.
>
>
>As far as smart drugs are concerned, Wurtman's remarks are much more
>tentative.  He believes that choline is very important for memory and
>other brain function but says there is as yet no evidence that any
>substance improves memory or makes normal people smarter.  He flat out
>says that Hydergine is ineffective.  

In every discipline there is specialized terminology, and sometimes this
means that words are used in a technical sense which is different from
their usage in every day language.  I now realize that the quote above
may have misled some of the lay readers of sci.med, as it misled me.  
To the extent that this has been the case, I apologize.  

In article <Uefy3Z_00Uh_Q8ng50@andrew.cmu.edu> sean+@andrew.cmu.edu 
        (Sean McLinden) writes, in respect to another thread:
>Are we talking science, here, or Miss Manners? Either evidence exists for the
>efficacy of a treatment or it doesn't. If it doesn't, then those that say the
>treatment is ineffective are clinically correct.

Thank you for this clarification, Sean.  In light of these remarks, I
realize that probably what Dr Wurtman meant above is that no research
has been done on Hydergine.  I incorrectly interpreted his statement to
mean that clinical trials had been done and the claimed benefit had
failed to manifest itself in a statistically significant way.

I realize that I am probably once against revealing my naivete about
empirical science and that people will once again post comments about 
Type II (or beta) statistical errors, but to me the difference between
the situation where no trials have been conducted and the situation where
clinical trials made in good faith failed to disprove the null hypothesis
seems important.  I realize now that the language of empirical science 
(at least as used in medical research) does not provide convenient
terminology to distinguish between these two cases.  

If the medical scientists here could find a way to indicate this
distinction, I for one would be grateful.  

In article <Uefy3Z_00Uh_Q8ng50@andrew.cmu.edu> sean+@andrew.cmu.edu 
        (Sean McLinden) further writes:

>It would be of benefit to this group if the advocates of any therapy limited
>themselves to what evidence exists and try to separate that evidence from
>anecdote, personal experience, wishes, dreams, and idle and fanciful
>speculation. All of the latter have their role in science, but they do not
>carry the same weight as a well-designed experiment.

I agree with this totally (except for the first clause of the first
sentence, which I notice that even the ultra-scientific types here
frequently violate).  I am sorry if any of my postings on any subject
have been misinterpreted as implying the existence of empirical evidence
in the form of clinical trials published in refereed journals.  I am not
a medical scientist and do not know of any such evidence supporting any
assertion I have ever made.  

Any statements I have made are based on -- in Sean's phrase -- anecdote,
personal experience, and even speculation.  I'm glad that Sean agrees
with me that information of this sort has its role in science.  I hope
that my postings may occasionally be useful as indications of areas
where scientific research might be worthwhile.  And as a guide to those
consumers who might want to try various things out in their own
unscientific way instead of ways for maybe five or ten years until
proper research has been conducted.

--
It is a poor sort of skepticism which merely delights in challenging
those claims which conflict with one's own belief system.  
                                                          --Bogus quote 
lady@uhunix.uhcc.hawaii.edu         lady@uhunix.bitnet
Newsgroups: sci.med