6 ms·
>If you don't have a statistically significant sample size and a control group, you are conducting bad science. I would argue that a sample of 1 with no contro
by jkimmel 12y ago
>If you don't have a statistically significant sample size and a control group, you are conducting bad science.
I would argue that a sample of 1 with no control is not worthy of being called science.
- kolev 12y agoDr. Mark Hyman is a practicing physician, not a disconnected from patients (i.e. the real world) researcher. He's identified an intolerance and he's treating it, and he got positive results. What's unscientific in his centuries-old approach?
- DanBC 12y agoYou need a control group to protect yourself from bias. This is true even for people doing science who don't have an agenda.
- kolev 12y agoSo, if I'm a physician, and if somebody comes to me with signs of a peanut allergy, I need to first do a control group before I treat by asking them to eliminate peanuts from their diet and see if they will get the symptoms? You're not being serious! Gluten intolerance is often asymptomatic and does harm that's not so obvious and directly correlated. In fact, it's probably better to have Celiac's and completely eliminate gluten with no doubts than have the asymptomatic form and keep living in denial!
- DanBC 12y agoPeanut allergy is real. You can tell when someone is allergic to peanuts because of anaphylactic shock. That other stuff? It's mostly bullshit spewed out by charlatans who are exploiting people.
- kolev 12y agoCeliac disease is also very real.
- DanBC 12y agoCeliac disease is also relatively rare, and you're not talking about Celiac but some mythical expansion of celiec to everyone.
- kolev 12y agoAccording to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coeliac_disease), there's a growing asymptomatic Celic disease in the United States - about 1% of the population. So, is this rare or not, I don't know, but all this is about a pathological level of sensitivity. There many more who are sensitive yet not to the level of pathology and that's what's causing low-grade inflammation that's slowly and silently ruining your thyroid and other organs.
- sliverstorm 12y agoThe problem is not about how he treated the patient. The patient got better for whatever reason, so c'est la vie The problem is when you take that one patient, and hold up that one example as proof. That is bad science.
- kolev 12y agoOkay, I agree with you on the proof, but, again, he's a doctor and his focus and moral goal is healing patients, not doing research by the book. If he was purely a researcher, I'd agree with you, but, again, he's very actively practicing medicine, and his conclusions are not based solely on the cases he references, I'm sure.