OT: Science vs. human experience

[Guest guest]

My take on Liang's message is that the conclusions of science should be as

valid, or maybe more valid, than the experiences of individual people. But since

we are individuals, science is no guarantee for us. R. made this point

quite recently.

When a research study says a treatment is safe or useful, it's referring to the

majority of people who undergo it, but not everyone. To make claim of safety or

efficacy requires that only a few people had adverse consequences (maybe 1 or 2

in 1,000? Or maybe a few more that were " fudged " because the researcher really

needs to prove success and the grant money's running out?--this was from my own

experience at a lab working on a cancer treatment).

If only a few people had problems with a treatment, a doctor can easily

recommend it. But as consumers of medical care, we have a different perspective.

A problem can be rare yet so worrisome to me that I will still do everything I

can to avoid it.

I was very fortunate that my endo presented all three treatment options for

Graves' as having equal benefits and drawbacks, but I fear that many people

aren't given that choice (which often still means being handled so badly on ATDs

that they seek out RAI; my endo is young and well educated but very ignorant

about Graves'. Nonetheless, she still has done a better job of managing my ATDs

than many stories I hear here.)

I think the point about organizing and summarizing research info is important,

too, as the format of this board can be pretty confusing. There are close to 900

members in Graves_support, so obviously we have a huge variety of needs--lots of

which do seem to get met here.

Best wishes,