Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Dear brave folks: It might be time again to say that each person's opinion is their own on grad list, and that even in best circumstances, mileage may vary...depending. regarding caffeine: Citing studies in ay direction can be misleading, as in my clinical experience, there are often hidden funders behind various studies. IN manyh sstudies found on the internet, or cited and recited on the internet, too often strictest protocols are not established, nor met, and are not carefully cited in the written study itself. There is often a skewing of a study through what we call the Hawthorne principle-- This is wherein the researcher unwittingly or more rarely influences the results, thereby pulling the study out of shape, so to speak, often gaining inaccurate data. There are some reliable study/research groups that have strong protocols and requirements for not only strict documentations, but repetitive and REPLICATABLE experiments following the intial study. These are the ones I and most of my colleagues place the most trust in. I have never seen one of those studies cited on grad list. Secondly, a clinician of any kind is trained to listen closely to " anecdotal evidence, " that is, the patient's subjective experiences of their own bodies, minds and hearts. Especially when there are many patients who report the same physical anecdotal instance, we are then to hold the idea that this may point to further useful study in that area. In other words, their reported expereince is not a sudden stone wall, but a gateway. We study anecdotal evidence to see how those instances may shine useful light on something we did not know before. We do not reject anecdotal information. If we did, our culture would not, for instance, have developed the mainstream uses of quinine (a malaria drug from quinoen trees growing in and fallen into pools of water used as 'medicine' by natives people), Tamoxifin (a -cancer drug, from under the bark of yew trees), or Viagra (originally developed for circulatory conditions as a result of heart ailments), amongst others. All were developed for their current meainstream uses through patients' anecdotal reports of 'side effects' that were then verified by not one, but many, many research studies that REPLICATED the original ones. The point is not to study an phenomenon helter skelter from a dozen angles, but to replicate, to see if it keeps " coming out the same. " When a patient gives anecdotal information, we are interested. That is the bottom line. We do not ask them to prove or disprove their own personal experience. Part of the healing nature, is to keep an open mind to what the patient says personally. Caffeine, like any other stimulant drug or medicine, effects different people differently. Becuase the wide range of literally hundreds of anecdotal effects regarding caffeine, have not been adequately studied with all proper protocol intact, we cannot say what the primary effect nor 'side effects' are for ALL populations, ALL ethnic groups, all age groups, both gender groups, all body types, etc. Again, listening to a person's anecdotal report, is most useful. We do not ask the patient to prove or disprove anything when we are interested in that they find their ways to care for their precious bodies. love, ceep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2003 Report Share Posted April 19, 2003 Dear brave folks: It might be time again to say that each person's opinion is their own on grad list, and that even in best circumstances, mileage may vary...depending. regarding caffeine: Citing studies in ay direction can be misleading, as in my clinical experience, there are often hidden funders behind various studies. IN manyh sstudies found on the internet, or cited and recited on the internet, too often strictest protocols are not established, nor met, and are not carefully cited in the written study itself. There is often a skewing of a study through what we call the Hawthorne principle-- This is wherein the researcher unwittingly or more rarely influences the results, thereby pulling the study out of shape, so to speak, often gaining inaccurate data. There are some reliable study/research groups that have strong protocols and requirements for not only strict documentations, but repetitive and REPLICATABLE experiments following the intial study. These are the ones I and most of my colleagues place the most trust in. I have never seen one of those studies cited on grad list. Secondly, a clinician of any kind is trained to listen closely to " anecdotal evidence, " that is, the patient's subjective experiences of their own bodies, minds and hearts. Especially when there are many patients who report the same physical anecdotal instance, we are then to hold the idea that this may point to further useful study in that area. In other words, their reported expereince is not a sudden stone wall, but a gateway. We study anecdotal evidence to see how those instances may shine useful light on something we did not know before. We do not reject anecdotal information. If we did, our culture would not, for instance, have developed the mainstream uses of quinine (a malaria drug from quinoen trees growing in and fallen into pools of water used as 'medicine' by natives people), Tamoxifin (a -cancer drug, from under the bark of yew trees), or Viagra (originally developed for circulatory conditions as a result of heart ailments), amongst others. All were developed for their current meainstream uses through patients' anecdotal reports of 'side effects' that were then verified by not one, but many, many research studies that REPLICATED the original ones. The point is not to study an phenomenon helter skelter from a dozen angles, but to replicate, to see if it keeps " coming out the same. " When a patient gives anecdotal information, we are interested. That is the bottom line. We do not ask them to prove or disprove their own personal experience. Part of the healing nature, is to keep an open mind to what the patient says personally. Caffeine, like any other stimulant drug or medicine, effects different people differently. Becuase the wide range of literally hundreds of anecdotal effects regarding caffeine, have not been adequately studied with all proper protocol intact, we cannot say what the primary effect nor 'side effects' are for ALL populations, ALL ethnic groups, all age groups, both gender groups, all body types, etc. Again, listening to a person's anecdotal report, is most useful. We do not ask the patient to prove or disprove anything when we are interested in that they find their ways to care for their precious bodies. love, ceep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.