New Yorker Article on Research - fascinating!

[REWohsnus]

I thought some of you folks might enjoy this New Yorker article on research - I found it worth reading until the end.


http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/ ... -wears-off

[pundit999]

Great article. Thanks for posting.

Because of biases like the ones mentioned in the article, it is better to rely on big population studies like the China Study or Dr Ancel Keys analysis or Dr MCDougall's insistence on what long living large populations eat, than for example, studies on effects of a single micornutrient.

And importance of preponderance of evidence as Jeff Novick advises.

[PurplePotato]

Definite thumbs up on the article from me . Here's an old thread I started talking about it, if anyone is interested: https://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48494.

Also, here's an interesting study looking at observer-bias due to lack of blinded researchers: http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e1119.long. This is a meta-analysis of many trials, where in each trial both blinded and unblinded researchers assessed the results of an intervention, labeling the intervention as either successful or unsuccessful. There was significant observer bias found across the trials, and this bias was caused on average by only 3% of patients being miss-categorized.