Hello All.
I thought I would take on each of Mike P.'s points:
It should be noted that drug treatment studies can be
conducted with within-subject designs such as crossover designs
where one group receives a drug treatment first and, after a
washout period, receives a placebo treatment. Another group
has placebo first and drug later. In any event, a competent researcher
will make sure that the design they use addresses threats to the
different types of validity involved in the study and try to make
sure that their effect is negated or minimized.
>All the patients experience dry mouth and constipation at every
cross-over
in the design. They all know when the treatment has changed. This does
not
control for the problem.
It might be a somewhat useful to follow the research heuristic
that "all treatment/medication studies involving human are invalid"
but, as with all heuristics, there will be situations where it fails and
situations where it is right but for the wrong reasons.
>This is not a heuristic, it is a fact. If the studies are not blinded
then they are not valid. They have no internal validity.
But if one uses
an outpatient population where the participants have no contact
with each other, it is hard to see the merit in Williams' critique.
>Outpatients still get dry mouth and constipation.
(3) A minor point: I would assert that though one's own personal
experience is, perhaps, a useful guide to think about things, it does
not necessarily constitute a valid guide. It
>I was using my own experience as an example. It was also the only way to
assess this threat since none of the research studies survey the
subjects or
investigators. I wonder why?
(4) I have conducted the statistical analysis for a few drug studies
as represented in the following publications:
>Your personal experiences are apparently not relevant (see 3 above).
Trying to
claim that all studies are invalid or all studies are valid is logically
invalid from an inductive perspective -- it is as foolish as claiming
that "All swans are white". Those without experience with black
swans will swear the "all swans are white" if that has been their
lifelong experience.
>If it barks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a swan.
What underlies my
criticism is that humans will reason their way through a study
and if they are given basic information like side effects, they will
infer the
presence of treatment or placebo. All the great research guides assume
that the
subjects are passive agents of the treatment research design. The idea
that they
would interact with the design causes great problems in our own inferences.
I generalize to all studies simply because I cannot think of a way
anyone, including
myself, can get around the problem. When problems like this exist the
very human
researchers put their collective heads in the sand and say its not so.
We can never be confident that any study of a psychological intervention
ever worked.
We have to accept that none of these interventions will ever meet an
objective
standard of empirical support.
Constipation trumps all.
Mike Williams
---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected].
To unsubscribe click here:
http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=12657
or send a blank email to
leave-12657-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
