4 ms·

In double-blind tests, one deliberately changes only one variable and compares/observes two groups where individual do not know whether they take a new drug or

by mhkool 11y ago

In double-blind tests, one deliberately changes only one variable and compares/observes two groups where individual do not know whether they take a new drug or a placebo. If the drug has a positive effect, the double-blind test is an accepted method of proof, but unfortunately this limits our options severely. If cancer can be cured by changing _two_ variables, we will never find a cure. NEVER! Remember that we already do research for 50+ years and have spent trillions, so I tend to think that Einstein was right: it is insane to repeat the same experiments and to expect a different outcome. Let's jump to Alzheimer, a feared disease with also a lot of research and not so good drugs. Dr Bredesen has made a protocol with 35 variables to cure Alzheimer. And in his first test, he reversed Alzheimer in 9 out of 10 patients. The scientific purists say that there is no double-blind study, so no proof. I am convinced that Dr Bredesen in on the right path, not only because of the results but also because of his reasoning. The treatment has no drug, but a health optimization in all possible ways. And then the body heals itself in 4 months. Please do not comment with "that cannot be true" unless you proof that it cannot be true (I do not belief that you can provide proof). So the state of current research methods is weak. Medical research only focuses on one variable, one drug, that will cure a disease. The results of this way of doing medical research are VERY disappointing. Trillions are spent and no drugs that cure cancer, AIDS or Alzheimer have been found. Dr Bredesen has chosen a different path and I support him.

orblivion 11y ago
So if you have an X variable cure, that means that an X-1 variable cure is not enough, right? I'm not very familiar with the nuances of the scientific process, but I would think that you could still run tests on one variable at a time. Just turn all but one variable "on", make that your control group. Turn all variables on, that's your experiment group. Now repeat the process isolating each variable, determining whether they're all in fact necessary for the cure.
mabcat 11y ago
Unfortunately you have a fundamental misunderstanding of health experimental design. Double-blind means that neither the participants nor the experimenters know which participant is allocated to which group. It doesn't say anything about how many groups there are or what is done to each group. I haven't heard of Dr Bredesen, but they could certainly run a double-blind study to validate their treatment regime. Treatments that haven't been validated in this way have a high risk of being ineffective but appearing effective due to experimenter error, placebo effect, demand characteristics, etc. Requiring convincing evidence in the form of a double-blind trial isn't purism, it's sensible caution based on experience. edit: you're also on shaky ground statistically. There's a rule of thumb that if interactions between several variables are present in a treatment effect, 70% of that effect will show up on the individual variables (as main effects). It's very unlikely that there exists a treatment where all the effect is on a 35-variable interaction and none of the effect is visible when looking at each variable singly.
- schoen 11y ago
  > It's very unlikely that there exists a treatment where all the effect is on a 35-variable interaction and none of the effect is visible when looking at each variable singly. Maybe something about genetic modifications where 35 different point modifications to the genome have to happen in order to allow synthesis of a working protein? If you measured the effect of each point modification, you might measure it as zero. I'm analogizing from trying to do statistical tests of whether a password is correct. At least in systems that aren't vulnerable to timing attacks, you can't just test part of the password and see if you get a little bit more access to the system as a result. :-)
- mhkool 11y ago
  You need to read my comment again. I never stated nor think what you wrongly assume. Your reasoning about the work of Dr Bredesen shows that you a re ignoring the facts. reversal of Alzheimer in 9 of 10 patients is a very significant results since nobody has ever reversed Alzheimer. The fact that the sample was small is only a reason to do a followup study with a larger number of patients, which is exactly what he is doing. The desire to reduce protocols to only a single variable is based on the wrong assumption that treatments can be successful with only one variable changed and excludes all treatments where more variables play a role.
Retric 11y ago
Treatment X, may contain drug multiple drugs and be treated as a single variable. Further, plenty of statistical tests work with multiple groups not just A vs. B. As to a cancer cure, we gotten ridiculous progress. The problem is cancer is effectively evolution and lacks a single cause.

by mhkool 11y ago

orblivion 11y ago

So if you have an X variable cure, that means that an X-1 variable cure is not enough, right? I'm not very familiar with the nuances of the scientific process, but I would think that you could still run tests on one variable at a time. Just turn all but one variable "on", make that your control group. Turn all variables on, that's your experiment group. Now repeat the process isolating each variable, determining whether they're all in fact necessary for the cure.

mabcat 11y ago

Unfortunately you have a fundamental misunderstanding of health experimental design. Double-blind means that neither the participants nor the experimenters know which participant is allocated to which group. It doesn't say anything about how many groups there are or what is done to each group. I haven't heard of Dr Bredesen, but they could certainly run a double-blind study to validate their treatment regime. Treatments that haven't been validated in this way have a high risk of being ineffective but appearing effective due to experimenter error, placebo effect, demand characteristics, etc. Requiring convincing evidence in the form of a double-blind trial isn't purism, it's sensible caution based on experience. edit: you're also on shaky ground statistically. There's a rule of thumb that if interactions between several variables are present in a treatment effect, 70% of that effect will show up on the individual variables (as main effects). It's very unlikely that there exists a treatment where all the effect is on a 35-variable interaction and none of the effect is visible when looking at each variable singly.

schoen 11y ago
> It's very unlikely that there exists a treatment where all the effect is on a 35-variable interaction and none of the effect is visible when looking at each variable singly. Maybe something about genetic modifications where 35 different point modifications to the genome have to happen in order to allow synthesis of a working protein? If you measured the effect of each point modification, you might measure it as zero. I'm analogizing from trying to do statistical tests of whether a password is correct. At least in systems that aren't vulnerable to timing attacks, you can't just test part of the password and see if you get a little bit more access to the system as a result. :-)
mhkool 11y ago
You need to read my comment again. I never stated nor think what you wrongly assume. Your reasoning about the work of Dr Bredesen shows that you a re ignoring the facts. reversal of Alzheimer in 9 of 10 patients is a very significant results since nobody has ever reversed Alzheimer. The fact that the sample was small is only a reason to do a followup study with a larger number of patients, which is exactly what he is doing. The desire to reduce protocols to only a single variable is based on the wrong assumption that treatments can be successful with only one variable changed and excludes all treatments where more variables play a role.

Retric 11y ago

Treatment X, may contain drug multiple drugs and be treated as a single variable. Further, plenty of statistical tests work with multiple groups not just A vs. B. As to a cancer cure, we gotten ridiculous progress. The problem is cancer is effectively evolution and lacks a single cause.