Is only 10% valid? The merits of medical research are challenged by its internal critics.

“Are 90% of all medical studies wrong — including nearly half of those claimed to be the most reliable? That’s the provocative claim made by researcher John Ioannidis, profiled in this month’s issue of The Atlantic.”  Thus spake Time magazine, in reviewing an article called “Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science” published in The Atlantic, written by contributor David Freedman.

The Atlantic article highlights the work of Dr. John Ioannidis – a professor at Stanford School of Medicine –  who, it says,”has spent his career challenging his peers by exposing their bad science.” He has proved that much of what medical researchers conclude in their studies is “misleading, exaggerated, or flat-out wrong”.  Included in the article is the following:

‘This array [of the “astonishing” range of errors being committed] suggested a bigger, underlying dysfunction, and Ioannidis thought he knew what it was. “The studies were biased,” he says. “Sometimes they were overtly biased. Sometimes it was difficult to see the bias, but it was there.” Researchers headed into their studies wanting certain results—and, lo and behold, they were getting them. We think of the scientific process as being objective, rigorous, and even ruthless in separating out what is true from what we merely wish to be true, but in fact it’s easy to manipulate results, even unintentionally or unconsciously. “At every step in the process, there is room to distort results, a way to make a stronger claim or to select what is going to be concluded,” says Ioannidis. “There is an intellectual conflict of interest that pressures researchers to find whatever it is that is most likely to get them funded.”’

One can only gratefully respect such a scientist for his integrity in open-mindedly entertaining an awareness of the issues that he raises, and for his courage in speaking out about them. Highlighting unconscious and even conscious bias in medical research is clearly needed to improve the calibre of the work done, and to improve the products and services offered to those who choose Western medicine as their healthcare approach.

As a Christian Scientist who has spent the past thirty years choosing instead a purely spiritual approach to healthcare and healing, I would take this one step further. I would suggest there is a profounder bias that will eventually surface due to this kind of honest self-examination, and that is the underlying presumption of materially measurable cause and effect.  While the placebo effect has highlighted the fact that there are mental factors inherent in treatment outcomes, the scientific method has not yet pinpointed the broader impact that thought has on every individual case.   Does the individual thought of the patient, the thought of the carers, and general public thought about the expected coure of a disease play a part in every experience of illness? And, if so, could these mental factors play a much larger part in assessing the outcome of every experiment conducted in the name of medical research?

And, if so, is there access through spiritual means such as prayer to a source of thoughts which affords positive  mental and physical health outcomes independent of purely matter-based starting points and conclusions?

Time will tell – and then maybe even Time magazine will tell! – whether an assumption of materiality is clouding scientific research into the cause and cure of disease, and whether there is a scientific spirituality that can throw light on to how to bring better thoughts to bear on the healing process.


Tags: , ,

Categories: Is Drug Dependence Healthy?, Medical Matters, Pharmaceuticals, Uncategorized

Author:Tony Lobl

I write and speak on spirituality from my perspective as a Christian Science practitioner. I am also an Associate Editor for the Christian Science periodicals. I studied at the University of Surrey earning a BSc Hons Degree in Modern Mathematics before the impact of spirituality on health caught my attention and re-shaped my career.

If you want to keep updated...

Subscribe to our RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

3 Comments on “Is only 10% valid? The merits of medical research are challenged by its internal critics.”

  1. Wendy Neubert
    October 21, 2010 at 1:30 pm #

    Thanks Tony–

    Enjoyed your article. Seems to be a convergence of information on this subject presently! NPR is also investigating “Dollars for Docs”…

  2. October 21, 2010 at 1:55 pm #

    Thanks for the link, Wendy – that’s fascinating.


  1. Is only 10% valid? The merits of medical research are challenged by its internal critics | Religion & Media - November 25, 2010

    […] only 10% valid? The merits of medical research are challenged by its internal critics. Posted on October 21, 2010 by loblt| 2 […]

Let me know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: