3 ms·
The article kindly submitted here is interesting. Like more and more recent articles about science in the popular press, this article, which reports on a large
by tokenadult 11y ago
The article kindly submitted here is interesting. Like more and more recent articles about science in the popular press, this article, which reports on a large analysis of previously published papers on salt in the human diet, digs into the process of science to look at how (or even whether) scientists learn from one another by citing the previously published papers on the same topic. The article's key point, just below a graphic that is criticized in several previous comments here, is "Overall the papers they reviewed were 50 percent more likely to cite reports that drew a similar conclusion than to cite papers drawing a different conclusion." In other words, scientists working on the issue of how much salt in the human diet is too much are largely talking past one another, and not collaboratively seeking truth. The article further reports, "Trinquart and his colleagues also turned up another factor that might pose even more profound problems in the salt research. It appears scientists could not even agree on what ought to be counted as evidence."
Human nutrition studies are notoriously difficult because it is very hard to measure exactly what a study subject eats, especially a nutrient like salt that occurs as a hidden ingredient in wildly varying doses in many foods. So correct measurement of the initial study data is hard to get right in studies about salt. But if scientists are still not in consensus about what to look at as endpoints to tell if salt is helpful or harmful in different doses, it will be a long time before we can individualize the research or do anything else suggested in the comments already posted in this thread.
- jarcane 11y agoI was recently prescribed beta blockers by my doctor, due to ongoing heart and blood pressure issues brought on by severe stress anxiety. I also have asthma. It's a mild case, and I don't need an inhaler or any medication for it, just get pretty short on breath under heavy exercise. Now, accumulated medical wisdom is that beta blockers are bad for asthmatics. They supposedly shorten air intake, and can even be fatal, especially in severe cases. NHS guidelines in the UK recommend against prescribing them to asthmatics and other similar lung conditions. But ... see it turns out this wisdom basically goes back to some case reviews from back in the 70s, of patients having reactions to proplanolol, the first beta blocker released to market. But recent reviews of the research shows that's pretty much all there's ever been: case studies. The only actual experimental trials done on this had significant methodological issues (one of them didn't even have a control group!), leaving little more than just a pile of what amounts to anecdotal evidence, involving two conditions (heart and lung) that have significant chance of comorbidity anyway. On top of that, even most of that research is all based on the original "nonselective" kind of beta blockers, while initial research with the modern "selective" variety indicates they may even help. Even more fun is that the beta-agonists sometimes prescribed as an alternative to blockers, may themselves have a reaction with asthma ... The end result is that in nearly 50 years of beta blockers being on market, no one medical professional actually seems to have any idea whether they're good or bad for asthma, but the "wisdom" gets passed down all the same ... And meanwhile I've got a bottle of them on my desk. I'm not a doctor, or a pharmaceutical scientist, and if they don't know if it's safe for me to take them or not, how in fuck am I supposed to make that choice?