Flu shot question (Page 5)

And draconian posts like this go a long way to discredit your cause. Inform, don't attack! If you have evidence that contradicts the poster, then present it but just rambling on about some fictitious 2 yo does not further your cause.

Never heard of this peron so I looked her up.

"A comedian or comic is a person who seeks to entertain an audience, primarily by making them laugh. This might be through jokes or amusing situations, or acting a fool, as in slapstick, or employing prop comedy. A comedian who addresses an audience directly is called a stand-up comic."


I you take your medical/parening advice from a comedian, actress, model the your children are doomed.

I'm not attacking anyone, and I apologize if that's how it came off. But anecdotal, subjective opinion simply does not deserve to be given equal weight as scientific fact, no matter with how much conviction the opinion is held. It just doesn't.

Sure it does! Anecdotal evidence is the fundamental basis for scientific change! If not for people bold enough to challenge the science, we'd still be using leeches to suck out the poisons. Anecdotal evidence is part of the scientific process.

Edited by Rogillio 2012-11-27 8:57 PM

Actually, I'd argue that anecdotal evidence, as opposed to scientific study, is what had people thinking that draining people's blood cured diseases in the first place.

it was the medical community that started perpetuated leeching. Google it.

Edited by Rogillio 2012-11-27 9:17 PM

regarding kids being sicker than before, I wonder if this could be due to the overuse of advil or tylenol. My feeling is people give these to their kids at the earliest sign of a fever so that the body never gets a chance to fight the infection like it should. The fever is there for a purpose right?

Anecdotal Evidence: The Basis of All Knowledge
APRIL 11, 2012 by ADMIN in CONVENTIONAL MED, FEATURED, SCIENCE with 50 COMMENTS



by Heidi Stevenson

Whenever someone expresses an opinion based on personal experience, especially in the field of medicine—and that opinion varies from the view held by the listener—the usual response nowadays is, “Well, that’s just anecdotal. The science doesn’t agree with you.” That statement sounds so convincing. After all, we can and do make mistakes in our observations. We make connections that aren’t there.

But, does that make anecdotal evidence invalid? And are science-based answers necessarily correct? In a word, No.

Doctors effectively and necessarily use anecdotal evidence every day. These bastions of evidence-based medicine actually base most of their practices on anecdotes. Sound crazy? Consider:

If you tell your doctor that a drug he’s just given you is causing a terrible headache, the chances are that you’ll be believed, and your treatment will be changed. He’s basing that decision on the anecdotal evidence you’ve just given.
Doctors tell each other stories of experiences during surgeries. If one doctor tries a new technique in surgery, it is almost never tested. Other doctors simply try it themselves if it sounds interesting. They’re basing those decisions on nothing but anecdotal evidence.
So, what is scientific evidence that makes it so important that one’s personal experience can simply be ignored, tossed aside as if it holds no value? In this age of science for sale—science co-opted by multinational corporations in virtually every arena—it has come to mean less and less in terms of providing real information on which to base health decisions.

Science in Medicine

In point of fact, anecdotal evidence is routinely provided in medical journals. They frequently produce articles of individual cases. If such anecdotal evidence weren’t of value, then why are such stories printed? It’s because they are evidence. Each case matters. Each case counts. The anecdotal evidence is of value.

Science can be a wonderful tool for gaining knowledge. It is not, though, the be-all and end-all of knowledge—especially in terms of health. Medical science studies tend to be one of two types:

The blinded placebo-controlled study, with variations on blinding and placebo-control.
The population-based epidemiological study.
Both are useful, but neither tells the whole tale. The blinded, placebo-controlled study attempts to eliminate anything the researchers deem to be irrelevant or likely to skew the results. That, though, narrows the focus to such a degree that it cannot account for all the variables that affect each individual person who might be subjected to the product, usually a drug, under investigation.

Population-based studies provide information about what’s true across enormous groups of people. They provide averages and ranges. However, they tell us nothing whatsoever about each individual.

Ultimately, the only evidence that truly matters is anecdotal: what a treatment does to the individual. It matters not if some nonexistent average person might benefit from it. That has little bearing on the individual’s reaction. It matters not if a large proportion of people tolerate a treatment well, if the individual is made ill by it.

The only medical evidence that truly counts for each person is anecdotal.

Modes of Learning

Does this imply that there’s no place for science? Of course not! Science is a fabulous tool for gaining knowledge. It simply isn’t the only one. Logic, which is distinct from science, is obviously of great value in coming to conclusions about what is and is not real. Einstein himself used logic in his famous thought experiments. It wasn’t until later that they were demonstrated to be true.

Unfortunately, those who promote science in medicine to the exclusion of all other means of learning miss the most significant fact of all: Humans are individuals, complex beyond comprehension. Life itself is something more than the interaction of chemicals and the laws of Newtonian physics.

The nature of life goes beyond chemistry and physics. Life exists because of something that doesn’t exist in anything inanimate: the struggle to survive and reproduce. Life has volition, and that makes it complex beyond the ability of any science experiment to predict with surety what will happen when any treatment is given to any individual. Yes, science can predict fairly accurately what will happen, on average, in large groups—but not what happens with each person within that group. Yet, medicine must treat the individual. That is obvious.

And that is why so-called evidence-based medicine fails. It ignores the most salient point of all: No person is average.

Anecdotal evidence combined with logic is how most knowledge was developed throughout most of humanity’s existence. How best to grow food was generally figured out by seeing what worked, exchanging information, and using logic. If it hadn’t been effective, we wouldn’t be here today. We know there are seasons because of observations. No studies needed to be done to discover that.

We learned that certain herbs had beneficial effects by trying them and passing on the information of what resulted: pure anecdotal evidence. But that’s how we know, for example, that milk thistle is good for the liver and hawthorn is good for the heart. No studies needed to be done. We learned through experience and anecdote.

Now, though, anecdotal evidence is deemed inadequate. It isn’t suggested that the methods of science can add to our knowledge. Instead, we’re told that the only acceptable means for learning is science, in spite of its obvious limitations when applied to individual people.

Reason for the Science-Only Focus

Why does this bull-headed blindness about science exist? Why is it so often used to bully people, especially those who espouse medical views that run counter to what’s accepted by modern mainstream medicine? The reason is really quite simple and crass: money.

Science has become the tool of corporations to get what they want. The more money they have, the better they’re able to control the outcomes. The better they control the outcomes, the more readily they can force their products on the masses of people. This alone should clarify that science is not the perfect tool so often presented.

The truth of this is readily apparent in medical science:

Those studies that have so-called negative results, meaning they conclude that the hypothesis is incorrect, are rarely published, in spite of the fact that such information is every bit as valuable as the results from a study that confirm the hypothesis.
Studies that don’t get the results the sponsoring corporation wants are almost never published.
Studies are routinely twisted with statistics designed to provide skewed results.
When results are not what was desired, the conclusions are often spun to give the impression they were.
Even the goals designed into studies are often not what we need to learn, such as investigating whether a drug lowers cholesterol but not whether it reduces heart attacks.
All these tricks are used to skew science, making it a tool of the sponsoring corporations. The stranglehold of these corporations goes so deep that studies sponsored by government agencies are often every bit as corrupted as those produced directly for corporations, because their people are infiltrated within the agencies, and their money often controls what the agencies choose to support.

It all comes down to money. Science, a wonderful tool, though not a perfect one, is held up as the only way we can get to the truth. It simply isn’t the case. Nonetheless, it’s been crammed into the public consciousness that nothing is to be believed unless it’s been proven by science.

The real joke here, though, is that the statement, “proven by science”, contradicts the very nature of science. Nothing is ever treated as absolute and true. That is, nothing is absolutely proven in science. Especially in the arena of medicine, the best that can be stated is that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that something is probably true. That’s all. And it never says that something is true for any individual person.

Anecdotal evidence is meaningful. To ignore it is to court the dictatorship of science taken out of its moorings and twisted to the purposes of corporations with no interest beyond profits. Anecdotal evidence is the only sort that holds any meaning in terms of medical treatment for each individual. Anecdotal evidence is the basis of all knowledge. Science has no place to start without anecdotes and reason. It’s a tool of those two methods of learning, not their replacement.


Tagged anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence knowledge, anecdotal evidence learning, anecdotal evidence logic, anecdotal evidence reason, anecdotal evidence science, conventional medicine, modern medicine, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, science

Anecdotal Evidence: The Basis of All Knowledge
APRIL 11, 2012 by ADMIN in CONVENTIONAL MED, FEATURED, SCIENCE with 50 COMMENTS



by Heidi Stevenson

Whenever someone expresses an opinion based on personal experience, especially in the field of medicine—and that opinion varies from the view held by the listener—the usual response nowadays is, “Well, that’s just anecdotal. The science doesn’t agree with you.” That statement sounds so convincing. After all, we can and do make mistakes in our observations. We make connections that aren’t there.

But, does that make anecdotal evidence invalid? And are science-based answers necessarily correct? In a word, No.

Doctors effectively and necessarily use anecdotal evidence every day. These bastions of evidence-based medicine actually base most of their practices on anecdotes. Sound crazy? Consider:

If you tell your doctor that a drug he’s just given you is causing a terrible headache, the chances are that you’ll be believed, and your treatment will be changed. He’s basing that decision on the anecdotal evidence you’ve just given.
Doctors tell each other stories of experiences during surgeries. If one doctor tries a new technique in surgery, it is almost never tested. Other doctors simply try it themselves if it sounds interesting. They’re basing those decisions on nothing but anecdotal evidence.
So, what is scientific evidence that makes it so important that one’s personal experience can simply be ignored, tossed aside as if it holds no value? In this age of science for sale—science co-opted by multinational corporations in virtually every arena—it has come to mean less and less in terms of providing real information on which to base health decisions.

Science in Medicine

In point of fact, anecdotal evidence is routinely provided in medical journals. They frequently produce articles of individual cases. If such anecdotal evidence weren’t of value, then why are such stories printed? It’s because they are evidence. Each case matters. Each case counts. The anecdotal evidence is of value.

Science can be a wonderful tool for gaining knowledge. It is not, though, the be-all and end-all of knowledge—especially in terms of health. Medical science studies tend to be one of two types:

The blinded placebo-controlled study, with variations on blinding and placebo-control.
The population-based epidemiological study.
Both are useful, but neither tells the whole tale. The blinded, placebo-controlled study attempts to eliminate anything the researchers deem to be irrelevant or likely to skew the results. That, though, narrows the focus to such a degree that it cannot account for all the variables that affect each individual person who might be subjected to the product, usually a drug, under investigation.

Population-based studies provide information about what’s true across enormous groups of people. They provide averages and ranges. However, they tell us nothing whatsoever about each individual.

Ultimately, the only evidence that truly matters is anecdotal: what a treatment does to the individual. It matters not if some nonexistent average person might benefit from it. That has little bearing on the individual’s reaction. It matters not if a large proportion of people tolerate a treatment well, if the individual is made ill by it.

The only medical evidence that truly counts for each person is anecdotal.

Modes of Learning

Does this imply that there’s no place for science? Of course not! Science is a fabulous tool for gaining knowledge. It simply isn’t the only one. Logic, which is distinct from science, is obviously of great value in coming to conclusions about what is and is not real. Einstein himself used logic in his famous thought experiments. It wasn’t until later that they were demonstrated to be true.

Unfortunately, those who promote science in medicine to the exclusion of all other means of learning miss the most significant fact of all: Humans are individuals, complex beyond comprehension. Life itself is something more than the interaction of chemicals and the laws of Newtonian physics.

The nature of life goes beyond chemistry and physics. Life exists because of something that doesn’t exist in anything inanimate: the struggle to survive and reproduce. Life has volition, and that makes it complex beyond the ability of any science experiment to predict with surety what will happen when any treatment is given to any individual. Yes, science can predict fairly accurately what will happen, on average, in large groups—but not what happens with each person within that group. Yet, medicine must treat the individual. That is obvious.

And that is why so-called evidence-based medicine fails. It ignores the most salient point of all: No person is average.

Anecdotal evidence combined with logic is how most knowledge was developed throughout most of humanity’s existence. How best to grow food was generally figured out by seeing what worked, exchanging information, and using logic. If it hadn’t been effective, we wouldn’t be here today. We know there are seasons because of observations. No studies needed to be done to discover that.

We learned that certain herbs had beneficial effects by trying them and passing on the information of what resulted: pure anecdotal evidence. But that’s how we know, for example, that milk thistle is good for the liver and hawthorn is good for the heart. No studies needed to be done. We learned through experience and anecdote.

Now, though, anecdotal evidence is deemed inadequate. It isn’t suggested that the methods of science can add to our knowledge. Instead, we’re told that the only acceptable means for learning is science, in spite of its obvious limitations when applied to individual people.

Reason for the Science-Only Focus

Why does this bull-headed blindness about science exist? Why is it so often used to bully people, especially those who espouse medical views that run counter to what’s accepted by modern mainstream medicine? The reason is really quite simple and crass: money.

Science has become the tool of corporations to get what they want. The more money they have, the better they’re able to control the outcomes. The better they control the outcomes, the more readily they can force their products on the masses of people. This alone should clarify that science is not the perfect tool so often presented.

The truth of this is readily apparent in medical science:

Those studies that have so-called negative results, meaning they conclude that the hypothesis is incorrect, are rarely published, in spite of the fact that such information is every bit as valuable as the results from a study that confirm the hypothesis.
Studies that don’t get the results the sponsoring corporation wants are almost never published.
Studies are routinely twisted with statistics designed to provide skewed results.
When results are not what was desired, the conclusions are often spun to give the impression they were.
Even the goals designed into studies are often not what we need to learn, such as investigating whether a drug lowers cholesterol but not whether it reduces heart attacks.
All these tricks are used to skew science, making it a tool of the sponsoring corporations. The stranglehold of these corporations goes so deep that studies sponsored by government agencies are often every bit as corrupted as those produced directly for corporations, because their people are infiltrated within the agencies, and their money often controls what the agencies choose to support.

It all comes down to money. Science, a wonderful tool, though not a perfect one, is held up as the only way we can get to the truth. It simply isn’t the case. Nonetheless, it’s been crammed into the public consciousness that nothing is to be believed unless it’s been proven by science.

The real joke here, though, is that the statement, “proven by science”, contradicts the very nature of science. Nothing is ever treated as absolute and true. That is, nothing is absolutely proven in science. Especially in the arena of medicine, the best that can be stated is that the preponderance of scientific evidence shows that something is probably true. That’s all. And it never says that something is true for any individual person.

Anecdotal evidence is meaningful. To ignore it is to court the dictatorship of science taken out of its moorings and twisted to the purposes of corporations with no interest beyond profits. Anecdotal evidence is the only sort that holds any meaning in terms of medical treatment for each individual. Anecdotal evidence is the basis of all knowledge. Science has no place to start without anecdotes and reason. It’s a tool of those two methods of learning, not their replacement.


Tagged anecdotal evidence, anecdotal evidence knowledge, anecdotal evidence learning, anecdotal evidence logic, anecdotal evidence reason, anecdotal evidence science, conventional medicine, modern medicine, pharmaceutical drugs, pharmaceuticals, science

But it wasn't studied, just opinion. A man physician came along in the 1830s and scientifically proved it was not effective for treating many diseases, yet other physicians continued prescribing leaches, sometimes 50 at a time!

As the scientific method continues to be applied to medicine to this very day we need to mindful of the level of evidence supporting various opinions and practices.

Bloodletting predated any application of the scientific method to medicine, so it's slightly revisionist history to suggest that anecdotal evidence won out over scientific study leading people to practicing bloodletting.

Mike, are you serious? I hope youre just pulling my chain. LOL. What a laughable crock of hooey that article is. It's exceeded only in its laughable hooey-ness by the website on which it appears.

Here are a couple of other winners from that site: "Proof that Childhood Vaccines are a Hoax" (written by Heidi Stephenson, the same woman as wrote the article you posted; in fact she accounts for a large percentage of the articles), there's also "That 'Organic' Peanut Butter Might Be Doing Irreparable Harm to You!" (Hmmm...also by Heidi Stephenson) and my personal favorite, "Psychiatry: An Agency of Torture and Death".

Wow. Sorry, I guess I'm just not that open minded.

Case studies ie anecdotal evidence is one level of graded evidence used in journals and position statements by medical boards. It is the lowest level of accepted evidence that is overridden by each level of evidence above it.

The process of scientific rigor in study design, minimization of bias and conflict of interest, and peer review prior to publication is of utmost important.

The most rigorous of all medical practice review is probably the Cochrane reviews.

Cochrane Reviews
"How do you know if one treatment will work better than another, or if it will do more harm than good?"
http://www.cochrane.org/cochrane-reviews


About Archie Cochrane
http://www.cochrane.org/about-us/history/archie-cochrane
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archie_Cochrane

I agree. I think the same is true for lots of drugs....including cholesterol drugs, ADD drugs, antibacterial soaps, etc. Its unbelievable the number of drugs some people take daily. We are a drug addicted society and if you don't drink the kool-aid you are written off as a goofball and your opines laughable.

Well no matter, those of us strong enough to live our life according to our own paradigm will do so regardless of what the rest of the herd does.

Cite what you found to be soo laughable in the article not what you found funny about OTHER articles or the website.

Anecdotal evidence is part and parcel to the scientific process. One can argue that it is low on the scale of evidence but it IS part of the process. That is only thing I was posting that for....not Organic Peanut butter.....not sure where you dug up all that hooney but you needn't have. :-)

Did you reply to the right thread? Who said doctors were evil? Or were you just wanting to brag that you are a doctor and went to Yale?!

The entire thrust of the article is, “science is inherently motivated by profit, and is therefore inherently bad/wrong”. Her thesis is basically not that different from KeriKadi’s: “I feel strongly in my opinions, and therefore, they should be given equal weight as science”. No one is saying that anecdotal evidence is useless, but it’s highly subjective and not always accurate, which is why it’s been overridden by the scientific method as a diagnostic tool. Further, there’s a big difference between a patient saying, “This medication gives me a headache” and the doctor choosing to discontinue the prescription versus someone saying “I think that vaccines are ineffective and might even be harmful” when there is significant scientific data that strongly suggests the contrary. The former is analogous to “My favorite color is red”, while the latter is like saying “flamingoes are green”.

Lastly it’s entirely relevant to consider the context in which the article is written and published. That article does not exist in a vacuum—rather it’s just one of many similar manifestos on the corruption of the medical and pharmaceutical field that is all over the website on which it appears. On the one hand, you, and others are discounting the validity of studies showing the effectiveness of vaccines because they are sponsored by drug companies who are seeking to profit from the results. But on the other hand, you are more than willing to accept the openly unscientific claims of someone who clearly has strong prejudicial feelings about conventional medicine in general, as evidenced by her various articles and the overall tone of her website.

You aren’t entirely wrong about the proliferation of drug use by our culture, but I don’t think immunizations and vaccinations should be lumped in with ED drugs, and other drugs that may be overprescribed. But believing some opinion piece you read on a random website just because it happens to support your own subjective belief makes no more sense than trusting absolutely in the promises of “Big Pharma”. If you’re going to seek your own answers, and you should, at least look for more legitimate sources of information than some lady who clearly has an axe to grind.