FOLLOW THE FACTS
Many politicians, TV personalities and others with no scientific background use the word ‘science’ to emphasize that they are speaking facts. Unfortunately, the word ‘science’ has been corrupted for political and economic reasons.
Science is evidence-based information which can be found in the scientific literature. Studies test theories and gather evidence using the scientific method. Theories and conclusions are constantly evolving, and by reading these primary sources, we can see the most current evidence. By reading peer-reviewed, published reviews, we can see an overview of several studies and weigh a larger volume of scientific information.
There will always be some bias, since scientists are human. As a researcher in industry, I would begin a series of studies with an objective innocence, but as a possible drug evolved, I naturally would hope for a certain outcome. Larger bias comes when the business people visit the lab and influence the results. A focus on big profits can influence the design as well as the results of the experiment.
SCIENCE MUST INCLUDE:
- Well established scientific facts. For instance, Vitamin D increases calcium absorption.
- References to or reviews of scientific studies.
- Considerable weight should be given to research that is not financially supported by the industry profiting from the results.
Reports in the media, or from government (CDC, EPA, FDA, etc) and industry organizations (AMA, Medline, Medscape) should be observed with a critical eye. The actual studies from which information is based on should be considered.
FACTORS TO CONSIDER:
- Who is funding the study?
- Is there a ‘clean’ control group?
- Is the study randomized?
- Does the study include a variety of participants as to age, sex, and health?
- If there is ‘missing’ data, why was it excluded?
- How old is the information? Sometimes older studies are still valid, but statistic related to the general population may change over time. For instance, vitamin D levels on the CDC website in 2020 were from 2002. Many lifestyle changes have occurred since then, challenging their current validity.
- The statistical significance of the results should be P=0.05 or less.
- Has the most significant factor been measured? For instance, a drug that decreases the ‘days in the hospital’ is less valuable than a drug that actually decreases the death rate.
- Is there a known mechanism that would support the results?
- Are there other studies approached in various ways to support the claims of this study?
- If a nutrient is studied, is the blood level considered? Having a sufficient blood level is more valid than considering a standard dose, which would have a great deal of individual variation.