Posted by Quintal on April 6, 2007, at 17:13:34
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by madeline on April 6, 2007, at 15:32:39
Clearly the article says the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin does work, that's not the issue. As I said in my previous post;
__________________________________________________
Even on this article on glucosamine I can hear the note of bias and grudging acceptance that it does actually work. Nowhere have I seen a study of a 'conventional' medicine where 100% of all participants obtained significant relief from the treatment, yet you'll never find the results presented in such an obliquely dismissive and disparaging manner as this.
__________________________________________________It's the way the evidence is presented that bugs me. For a casual browser unfamiliar with semantic games the introductory line;
__________________________________________________In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the popular dietary supplement combination of glucosamine plus chondroitin sulfate did not provide significant relief from osteoarthritis pain among all participants.
__________________________________________________Casts a very negative shadow over the positive:
__________________________________________________
However, a smaller subgroup of study participants with moderate-to-severe pain showed significant relief with the combined supplements.
__________________________________________________To ordinary members of the public looking towards this site for balanced, unbiased authority on alternative medicines this is discouraging. Few would then bother to go looking for the prescribing info you quoted. They'd probably go back to the more reassuringly positive reviews of conventional medicines. I don't believe this is accidental. A similar theme follows through the other treatments I looked at.
>Seems fair to me.
Okay, lets turn this around and ask if this would be a fair and unbiased representation of the facts on SSRIs:
__________________________________________________"In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the popular antidepressant sertraline hydrochloride did not provide significant relief from depressive illness among all participants. However, a smaller subgroup of study participants with moderate-to-severe depression showed significant relief with sertraline hydrochloride."
__________________________________________________Now why would we word an article like that where the emphasis is on the negative - that sertraline did not provide significant relief among *ALL* patients, and the positive (that for some people with moderate-to-severe depression it is effective) is presented as being secondary, almost less important, when afterall a 100% success rate is a very unusual response rate? I've never seen anything like that in studies published by pharmaceutical industry, and they wouldn't (even though it is technically a fair and accurate appraisal of the facts) because from the outset your mind is tuned to the negative and you get the impression sertraline isn't really worth bothering with - you 'd probably go and look for a treatment which received a more positive review.............like this for example:
__________________________________________________St. John's Wort provided significant relief for people with moderate-to-severe depression with co-morbid anxiety. However, St. John's Wort did not provide significant relief for all participants, particularly a subgroup of those with severe and psychotic depression.
__________________________________________________The wording of the summary forms a different picture in your mind.
Q
poster:Quintal
thread:747132
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20070320/msgs/747631.html