Posted by JohnL on October 29, 2000, at 5:22:15
In reply to Re: 3Day to 2 Week Responses. Proof, not myth. » JohnL, posted by Cam W. on October 28, 2000, at 10:53:08
Hi Cam,
Thank you for you response. I hadn't even thought about who sponsored the studies. Good observation. After pondering the concept, I have to wonder if it really changes anything significantly? I don't think it does, but I could certainly be wrong. Maybe I'm too naive, but it just seems to me double blind is double blind, no matter who's cutting the payroll check. There are no ifs, ands, or buts about it. That's the whole purpose of double blind, right?I think sponsorhip bias can skew the conclusions of a study one way or the other, but they can't significantly skew the actual recorded events during a study. Am I wrong? For example the 17 out of 26 people who showed some response within 3 days, are the physicians liars? Did they just make those numbers up? I can see some of those responders being placebo, some being misinterpreted side effects, but certainly some were authentic. Just based on what I've seen happen in real life, I would guess it's a significant some who were authentic. There's too much scientific and anecdotal evidence to suggest otherwise.
What confuses me, and probably explains why I am naive and all-trusting when I go to read something in reputable print, is that I don't know the difference between peer reviewed and non peer reviewed. I'm not sure where to draw the line? I figure if it ends up in Journal of Psychiatry or whatever, it had to jump through a lot of hoops to get there? Space is real limited and they don't have room or profit potential with junk?
I usually look at it this way. If it's double blind with less than 100 participants, it's note worthy but not conclusive. If it's double blind with at least 100 participants, it's very reliable. If it's double blind with several hundred or more participants, it's solidly reliable. Whoever is cutting the payroll check might influence the conclusions of the author, but can't change the events that took place during the study. I know I'm overlooking something. What am I overlooking? I'm just trying to pinpoint what, if anything, could be so grossly out of line in the 24ish studies I found in just an hour that show evidence of patients responding in a few days to two weeks. Where can I find evidence of equal weight that shows these phenomenon didn't, or don't, happen?
Confused and naive I guess.
John
poster:JohnL
thread:47596
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20001022/msgs/47686.html