caffeine/LONG (sorry, probably alot of this is OT--pls feel free to delete)

April 19, 2003

*****Dear Ray:

In a message dated 4/19/03 11:39:55 PM, ray@...

writes:

Ray wrote: >>>>>>>To get something

published in regular magazine or newspaper, someone sends in their

article and if the editor likes it, it gets published. >>>>

*****Ceep writes: Not my experience. Thirty-three years of practicing under

my doctorate and postdoctoral diploma, and publishing a lot, and having

materials rejected also, I have to say, my experience is far from your view.

Most of my colleagues publish across all formats, in journals, magazines, and

books. (I publish only in mags (national and international) and books (New

York publishers and University pub) and on audio/CD.)

*****I think having many experiences in all these formats gives one a

different point of view. There's a saying in the profession; every publishing

is a loss of innocence. There's a reason that professionals who publish a

great deal say that. Idealism about the purity of it all is moderated greatly

by broad experience in publishing. It is replaced with grit and facing the

facts that it is often a murky business, no matter who, what, where, why,

when and how.

Ray wrote: >>>>>>>A different track is followed to have an article published

in a peer reviewed journal. The proposed article is submitted to a panel of

peers in that particular area of study...Only if all the members of the panel

agree that the proposed article meets generally accepted research standards

and the conclusion or lack thereof is consistent with the data gathered is

the article published. Since the study is validated at arms length by

individuals who have no connection with whomever might have paid for

thestudy, the motive of the sponsoring party is largely a non-issue. >>>>>

*****Ceep writes: Not my experience either, nor that of my colleagues who

work on the line, whether at journals or in the lab or in the field. A " peer

reviewed " journal cannot guarantee objectivity just because it is " juried. "

In my experience, if it is printed in a journal, all the more usefulness that

exact replicative studies be undertaken. Most M.D.s I know who are in

professional research do not stop at one study and hold it out as proof. It

is replication of the study many times (after publication) that holds the

sturdiest consequence in their minds.

*****The politics alone in any research journal/group/company are profound.

Profound. My colleagues, whether at University Research Center, Mayo, s

Hopkins, Duke, are deeply battle scarred. You have to be to take that track.

Imagine the games and gore of university academia, then multiply by 1000. The

public often wonders why research takes 'so long.' If they only knew that

research is often like a brutal roller derby with many researchers are trying

to knock each other out of the arena, trying to 'make their names on the

backs of other,' trying to get the promotion, get the salary raise, get their

personal bailiwick off the ground, be thought of publicly as " The One, "

making buddy-pacts of various sorts, agreeing tacitly or covertly to exclude

or include this one and that one.

*****Unfortunately, there are many warring factions in research of any kind,

many persons lined up tribally, many loyalties and pay-backs, both of the

reward and of the back-stabbing kinds. It is naive to think otherwise. When

there are huge amounts of money and fame possible, but perhaps most

especially when a kind of pseudo " immortality' is seemingly offered, the

feathers fly. A lot. And sometimes even in literally deadly ways, if you

follow the both history and the news.

******The translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls, of the Nag Hammadi were

delayed by decades. The study of cancer cell research re tobacco, prima

gravida research re true infant mortality stats, and others have been delayed

by what some call " human drag. " A large, large share of delayed research

outcomes have to do with warring egos that delay strict attentiveness and bar

a clear road to the work. Those who are involved in these matters as

clinicians and clinical researchers know this by heart.

*****The thing about the researchers who are ethical and have impeccable

integrity, who hang in there despite the conditions inherent, who find a way

to dig under and around those " electrified barriers, " are to my mind " the

real heroes " for public health and welfare. They are usually the least

touted, the most quiet, and consistently bring in the best and most useful

work. They are not braggarts, nor intrusive, nor aggressive except in trying

to follow their desire to find ways to help humanity that will matter /help

the human condition as usefully as possible.

Ray wrote: >>>>>>Hawthorne principle>>>>>

*****Ceep writes: Not going to go on too much about " Hawthorne Effect " as I

doubt anyone on grad list is panting to know more about it or anything else

having to do with obscure failed research nearly 50 years old. I think most

people on grad list just want reliable info that they can count on, that will

work for them TRULY, and they will decide for themselves what that is, to the

best of their ability. As it should be. Over the years on grad list, about 4

-1/2 years now I think, I time and again see people make smart decisions

after gathering all kinds of info and many points of view. I have faith that

everyone will do their best to find their ways.

*****Your prof said he interviewed a couple workers. But what he told you he

'found out' has in fact, been published, at length, hundreds of times since

the mid 20th century. (I just peeked to see. Found a list of near 20,000

articles on the Internet, with varying degrees of grasp of the issue. Most

reference that remark, that is, that " some " workers speculated they increased

work because of attention they were receiving.)

*****What is not said on Internet, but that my colleagues and I teach to 2nd

and 3rd year med students, Psy.D. and Post Doctoral students, is that the

breakdown of the experiment, the lack of orderly protocol to assess what

occurred, the late reportage by 'some' few workers, and several other factors

of politics, pressure of the researchers on themselves to perform, were never

thoroughly studied. Let alone whether it could be determined whether the

reports of only 'some' of the employees were valid or not. ('Some' workers

thought they speeded up the work because they were receiving attention: This

in retrospect is considered by many to be one of the least in-depth aspects

of what occurred during that time.

*****In essence, 'the jury is still out' about the entire Hawthorne matter.

Many machinations, covert and otherwise, of various persons involved have

come to light over the years, and are still coming to light and being

evaluated. There is also high speculation in recent years that the Hawthorne

experiment may have been sabotaged by collegial in-fighting. So much for

definitive outcomes. We will have to wait and see what ALL the facts are, if

ever they can be known at this very late date.

*****I would have to stand tight however, with regard to anecdotal reportage

about one's own body. The variations of response to any one physical factor

is, in human beings, highly variegated. Whether it is about one person's

response to water, caffeine, sugar, any substance; it is clear there are

individual tolerances. It's just my two cent's wroth, but to my mind, a

person's reportage about their own body ought be approached by perhaps asking

many questions in order to try to discern how to help. An individual's

experience of their own body, is not, to my mind, a call for them to be

pressed to cite " proof " in a study. The question is not who " proves' or

" disproves " what. The question to my mind is, how can we help this person,

taking their unique experiences to heart.

*****. I think an open mind and finding what works for each individual are

the same thing. If there can be studies about such matters that are honest

and not self-interested, all the better. If the product of a study can

provide some guidance for IMPROVEMENT OR great RESULTS for that individual,

that would be effective and useful to boot.

***** To respond to other of your comments: There are endless examples of

research being misleading, inaccurate, and worse, contributing to human

suffering. Living nearly 60 years now and also having taught History of

medicine and psychology, it is clear that some studies appear to be reliable,

but quite a few are not, or are flawed in one part or more, no matter where

they are published, no matter the credentials of who they are done by.

*****This has been true for literally five hundred years plus, since

Guttenberg and his type press. I will not go into the well-documented medical

disasters caused by various " studies, " well thought of in their time, (as

recent as our current lifetimes,) that encouraged professionals to ignore or

torment suffering persons who had 'idiosyncratic' or 'common' reactions to

any given substance. Finally, decades later, via accumulated patients'

anecdotal evidence, the researchers with more integrity, more open minds and

sometimes more inspiration, properly studied the issue. Thus, the old

'research conclusions " were finally debunked. The history of all the

professions re research holds out case after case of the miscarriage of

design, the bias of the researcher, and much more, until such a previously

unassailable 'medical assertion' was in fact proven, irretrievably, to be

false. Those wrong turns were often egregiously contributory to human

suffering, and yet touted by many.

*****At this point, I am far more interested right now in 's and others'

experiences of caffeine acting like a diuretic in their bodies, than in

anything else about this subject of " studies " .

*****To : an interesting piece of information. Amongst some Peruvian

native healers at the last Ethnobotany conference, where many native persons

are now Ph.D.s and M.D.s and RN's and registered dietitians, certified

nutritionists, and psychoanalysts, there have been reports that small amounts

of coffee-type caffeine are given to control cardiovascular function in some

individuals re headache, and also to cleanse the body, meaning certain

infusions containing it, seem to have a diuretic effect in some persons.

I think this may amount to my three cent's worth this time, one cent more

than usual. And I still can't spell. (grin)

love,

ceep

April 19, 2003