“Statistics teach
absolutely nothing about the mode of action of medicine nor the mechanics of
cure.” – Claude Bernard
Spurious Correlations, a term coined by Karl Pearson to describe the relationship between ratios and absolute measurements, is defined in Wikipedia: In statistics, a spurious relationship or spurious correlation is a mathematical relationship in which two or more events or variables are not causally related to each other (i.e. they are independent), yet it may be wrongly inferred that they are, due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third, unseen factor (referred to as a "common response variable", "confounding factor", or "lurking variable").
Little insight is gained from the accruing enormous
research. To resolve ambiguity by using mathematical probability without a
tincture of skepticism sterilizes the intellect and obfuscates the truth. While
mathematical probability is a human invention to ease our understanding of the
world of science. “Willful ignorance entails simplifying our understanding in order to
quantify our uncertainty as mathematical probability.” -Herbert
Weisberg
Tylervigen.com
The scientific journals fill pages of mathematically derived
studies to prove an intent, but do little to advance the cause of the
physicians faced with the dilemma of treating disease.
Today quantification is the game in town. If you cannot
quantify then it does not matter. Essentially the modern halls of medicine have
relegated qualification of a disease process to the charred bin of history. A
clinician once and still in some cases treats disease with the qualification of
his or her earned and educated wisdom from experiential hindsight. The deluge
of quantified guidelines inundating the landscape of medical IFTTT (If This
Then That), which determines payment by the third-party insurers is
circumventing the very essence of medical care of patients.
The illusion of certainty is compounded by the statistical
geniuses who have little to do with medical facts or care and more to do with
number manipulation to find the statistical significance. After having found
the golden p-value of less than 0.05 deem the experiment, correlation, or a randomized control trial a landmark success. The quest to succeed supersedes intuition and judgment of the researcher. Today the desire for publication overrides all other questioning beasts of the mind. Studies are done for the sake of publishing and not for the sake of science of discovery itself.
No wonder the biotech giant Amgen reviewed 53 “Landmark
studies” and found only 6 verifiable!
Validation data of drug target studies could only prove 14
of 67 projects.
If you look at the financial picture, the US government
spends nearly $31
billion every year in science funding through NIH , which is given as research
grants to academic scientists. Given the reproducibility rate of 11% (6 of 53)
suggests that 89% or $28.74 Billion is being wasted. The obvious implications
of such frivolous spending in healthcare costs are staggering when scaled to
the entire medical industry.
Today scientific investigation considers human intuition and
judgment as flawed and outmoded. Poisson once determined medical care through the
lens of mathematical probability, is alive, well and wildly flourishing in the
halls of scientific search. And few scientists straighten their spine to ask
the question, “Can probability and statistics arbitrate the truth?”
Probability a subjective and ambiguous prospect, once an
adjunct to reality has redefined itself as the objectified norm. The frequency
of observable events as a hypothesis generating concept has now by the magic of
quantification become “real” evidence as in medicine. The term “Risk” as
one might realize, in medicine is
associated with causation, yet no precise term of the relationship between
correlation and risk has a unified support, meanwhile, statistical fiat controls
the issue of risk and harm. The anticipated “Harm” is exposed in this article
from the Harvard Professors: https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/23/repealing-the-affordable-care-act-will-kill-more-than-43000-people-annually/
The logic here relies on estimates based solely on assumptions. There are no
hard facts except disparate data to prove their ideological point. So is that harm?
Calling into question the human subjectivity as a failing,
quantified methods reign supreme today. Judgement, intuition, experiential
reference subjugated to the quantified, computerized IFTTT norms. And the
developed algorithms of best treatment are based on probability of response and
the cost of the treatment. The hard truth willingly being ignored is the spark
of intuition gained from the potential response of a single patient and the
molecular truths that might lie beneath, rather than the quantified “logical”
guideline based patient’s care. Even more dumbfounding is this concept at play
in "scientific journals:"
Brenda J. Klement, Douglas F. Paulsen and Lawrence E.
Wineski are authors of: Clinical Correlations
as a Tool in Basic Science Medical Education Journal of Clinical correlation as
a Tool in basic Science Medical Education. The article published in Journal of Medical Education and Curricular
Development. In this article the authors propose the following; “Clinical
correlations are tools to assist students in associating basic science concepts
with a medical application or disease.” One only needs to imagine the impact on the
spongy brains that absorb these concepts and use them as the foundation for all
future patient management in medicine.
tylervigen.com
While doubt and ambiguity grow uncertainty, quantified
statistical inference deems to reduce doubt by applying certainty where
certainty does not exist. Whereas real experimentation means a chance meeting
error in the face, quantified inference on the other hand, suggests a
sterilized, clean and objectified certainty. We are awash with "incremental
advancements" that ebb and flow but real breakthroughs in medicine are few and
far between. This exalted form of science of statistical "purity" has caused a slew of retractions in its wake. The
retractions come in bigger and bigger waves, some by authors, others by peer
complaints, and still others by the journals themselves. Most of these “high
impact” articles have been cited in other literature and by other scientists as
well. The scale of damage to the real advancement of science and medicine
continues at unprecedented pace. Copied below are a few recent retractions;
5.
http://www.jbc.org/content/291/53/27434
6.
http://retractionwatch.com/2016/04/05/cancer-researcher-earns-9th-retraction-for-image-duplication/
The human mind has the uncanny ability to use logic, experience,
outcomes, experimental design, minority opinion and other perspectives to grow
their intuition map. From there the seeds of truth grow. The mechanized,
automated, statistically quantified world of today leads to the unnatural and
uncomfortable way of a flawed linear thinking. Today’s “Evidence,” as
proclaimed by the statistical manipulators, remains a soft flowing sea of sand,
moved by the vagaries of the winds of numerical information and/or misinformation.
Panaceas abound in the form of “Coffee,” “Antioxidants,” “Vitamins” to name a
few that were dismissed after being regaled in laity publications, the NEWS
print and digital media. Coffee was correlated to cause cancer and then it was
not.
Here are a few booms and busts related to faulty science.
Coffee causes cancer…
1.
Stocks P. (1970) Cancer mortality in relation to
national consumption of cigarettes, solid fuel, tea, and coffee. Br J
Cancer, 24:215–225
2.
IARC, (1991) ‘Monographs on the Evaluation of
Carcinogenic Risks to Humans: Coffee, Tea, Mate, Methylxanthines and
Methylglyoxal. Volume 51
Coffee does not cause
cancer…
"After thoroughly reviewing more than 1,000 studies in humans and animals, the Working Group found that there was inadequate evidence for the carcinogenicity of coffee drinking overall."
Antioxidants and
Cancer…
Initially Antioxidants were supposed to prevent cancer,
later it was suggested that it might promote it!
Cochrane Review of the benefits of Antioxidants finds there
is 1.03 higher risk of cancer with it’s use: http://www.cochrane.org/CD007176/LIVER_antioxidant-supplements-for-prevention-of-mortality-in-healthy-participants-and-patients-with-various-diseases
And studies in mice show; Antioxidants accelerate tumors in
mice
Meanwhile Vitamin D still remains the science writer’s current
favorite who present both sides of the benefit and risk arguments with zeal of their
intent.
Current Conclusions:
We found no evidence to support antioxidant supplements for primary or
secondary prevention. Beta-carotene and vitamin E seem to
increase mortality, and so may higher doses of vitamin A. Antioxidant
supplements need to be considered as medicinal products and should undergo sufficient evaluation
before marketing.
It is wise to remember Galton’s “Correlation Coefficient;” a
numerical measure of the degree of relationship between two quantities, once
heralded and later quantified by Karl Pearson as a measure of “partial causality,” since 1890 and through time, has been transformed by the manipulation of
“quantified metrics” into “absolute causality.” This arbitrary measure of
conjecture has now become fact du jour. The evidence in medical
science is supposed to be based on “causation” and not using statistical generalizations via mathematical
probability. At best this new "science" gives us partial causality and lends to harm for all.
