Why you should not believe the spectacular discoveries in the field of medicine

The American Journal of Medicine published a study that could answer this question. From 1979 to 1983, in scientific journals had announced the opening 101 in the field of medicine. All they had to help deal with a variety of diseases, but only five have entered the market for 10 years, and only one widely used so far.

new data

New assumptions that contradict all previously obtained an experienceMost often they are erroneous.

The well-known Italian specialist in the field of vascular surgery Paolo Zamboni (Paolo Zamboni) offered an innovative way to treat multiple sclerosis - an autoimmune disease affecting the central nervous system. Scientists managed to improve the state of his wife and another 73% of patients suffering from diffuse sclerosis, "unlocking" their jugular veins and unpaired (ie, the expansion of endovascular procedures veins). And because Dzamboni suggested that multiple sclerosis - is not an autoimmune disease, and vascular.

Journalists immediately picked up the romance and gave hope to many patients (today cardiovascular diseases are treated better than autoimmune). But unfortunately, this "breakthrough" in the treatment of multiple sclerosis has been greatly exaggerated. Other researchers have failed to reproduce the results.

While the media every now and then there are news about the miracles and breakthroughs in scientific community According to the new ratio is somewhat different.

There is a huge difference between how related to new media sources and scholars. Media hunt for news, sometimes neglecting the objectivity and the scientific community looks at the new data in the first place as false.

Naomi Oreskes (Naomi Oreskes)

premature conclusions

Their results are often published before their spell check. Most of these studies, in fact, is not brought to an end. As the saying goes, "the truth is somewhere nearby."

Scientific discoveries are rarely the result of a miracle or a sudden inspiration. Typically, advances in science occur after repeated rechecking and discussion in order to find the random errors in the experiments. In the meantime, scientists are only working on the idea, the public snatches "promising development". So, every year in the media publish information about hundreds of breakthroughs in treatment cancer.

It is fair to say that the scientific community there are those who are too emotionally involved and the results obtained ahead of time makes them out of the lab.

How to deal with it? Share all at least 15. According to staff estimates Canada's McMaster University, only 3000 of the 50,000 articles published in scientific journals in 2004, can be considered sufficiently mature. It is only 6%.

contradictions

Often article one edition contradict each other. In the case of competing editions it becomes mandatory aspect of the struggle for the reader.

How many times have you read that red wine prolong life? And how about that alcohol harmful? The same can be said about the benefits and dangers of each product in respect of various diseases.

49 is widely quoted in the medical research 14 (over one-third) or contrary to previously published data, or not fully confirmed.

It is very difficult to take into account all the factors in the study. And often even do not have a purpose. Scientists are not any gods, but ordinary people who work for the usual money. They also need to be on time to apply for funding, to release students to defend their candidate. A background check is carried out after the release of the article in a scientific journal, when they try to repeat the experiment in another laboratory. Refutation can be published only months or years later.

Belief in miracles

An adult in a position to take responsibility for the choice made, so critical perception - the right and duty of each of us.

Today information spread with great speed. you can access even to private data if desired. But it does not mean more is better.

Do not forget that scientific journals are rather controversial goal when publishing materials. In turn, the popular publication in a highly competitive environment, of course, may exaggerate the value of some data in its own interests. To break this vicious circle is difficult without a rigid censorship, which has plenty of his own shortcomings.

But there is a solution! This is a responsible approach equally by the author of the article, and on the part of the reader.

Rely new data in the field of medicine is not necessary. If you wish to have verified information, it will likely have to wait for years until typed sufficient experimental base.

If you can not wait, be researchers experiment:

• Read an inspirational story - try to practice.
• Analyze your own feelings.
• Did not help? Look for something else.

But remember that you have decided to take part in these experiments on their own.

What not to do clearly, it's bite on reports of miracle means that improve your life without any effort on your part. Despite the development of science, it still belongs to the category of magic.