Quote:
Originally Posted by soccertese
you've got drug companies spending millions designing trials and analyzing the data using highly trained professionals. this isn't cancer or diabetes or treating high blood pressure where it's easy to take measurements, your're measuring small changes over time in a patient where their pd changes from minute to minute, that requires some knowledge of biology, statistics, science.
|
There are many things I have personally noted about the lack of "science" in our scientific research, but will just point to the experts:
Please consider this info and see if you still have the same concerns.
Based on the meager results page of a Google search, it seems that not too many people know of Dr. John Ioannidis? He wrote a landmark paper in 2005:
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.
This is a patient friendlier read in The Atlantic Monthly:
Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science
Even his critics at Johns Hopkins contend that he is basically correct.
I think that PD research fails on many of his points. I don't mean any disrespect for researchers; they are caught up in a "system" just as much as we are. However, I don't think we can sit back and say they have absolute authority on asking questions, seeking answers, and sharing information. What John and Rick are proposing is not nearly as harmful as an unproven hypothesis becoming the core of research for over 50 years. Maybe this is a factor in why we have no cure?
I will say maybe for legal reasons we need to rethink the rat lab as a source for a group name. 23andme is calling those in PD cohort "Citizen Scientist" what if we took on name "Patient Scientist" or "Impatient Patient" tee hee
Laura