Very interesting indeed, I'm sure at least some of it is valid, such as trying to sterilize your hands too much- since we have good bugs that
fight the bad bugs. Much as when antibiotics kill our useful and needed bugs in our gut, while hopefully killing all of the bad guys. But I will take some of it with a grain of salt.
I had a thread a while back asking "are some studies designed to fail". I won't go into details on that again, except to say it was a study(an RCT at that! But no much needed placebo) that in my mind was set up in such a way to end with a conclusion that something did not work, while IMO the study was bogus and proved nothing of the kind. Having read so many studies in recent years, and when digging into the details finding that the data within did not always seem to support the conclusion of the study- and not even considering bias which is really hard to know if there is bias or not- I have come to cast a jaundiced eye upon the term "there is no evidence". Because, what people so often(admittedly not always) mean with that statement is that there is no large, double blinded, placebo controlled, randomized clinical trial. And until there is, we just can not have a clue. It's as though we can not know anything via common sense or what appears to be strong evidence, you must have these studies or you have no proof and can not safely take any action. Admittedly, they do make exceptions for for bullets or baseball bats to the head, and for smoking. (never seen an RCT for smoking, right? Yet thanfully the only advice that can be found is to NOT smoke).
IOW, I believe there is some good food for thought in this article, but at the same time, just because "
there is no evidence" for X, does not for sure mean that the X is not partly or VERY helpful. Of course, I may just be stating the obvious.
Speaking of
evidence, the authorities told me once again, on tonight's evening news, how we must all absolutely get a flu shot before it is too late, because it is a terrible flu season. While saying at the same time, and with a straight face, that it is only 10% effective. While they ALL ignore the same study I took issue with, which showed something at least 50% effective against flu, probably even more effective since they did not even compare to a placebo. But their conclusion is simply that there is no evidence of any benefit and the intervention can not be supported. I was shocked that the 50% effective against flu(if not even MORE against placebo) was not headline news(rather than buried), but OTOH all insisting we go for the 10% effective is almost daily advice from all authorities. That is apparently what the evidence supports.
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 12/28/2017 8:22:22 PM (GMT-7)