RE: Why "Promising" doesn't mean "Cure"
I could kill cancer with lemon juice. Just give me a container with 2500 liters of lemon juice and let me drown cancer patients in it.
But the potential medicine. It's a delight to read in the news regarding many potential new solutions for different things. A new drug which helps against specific types of cancer, heart problems, memory problems...
And in the end, they either help only a tiny bit or will kill someone.
Even though I appreciate media giving space to the new studies regarding medicine, I'm unhappy with the fact how they are presenting things as superb solutions, sometimes with no reason to do that.
People who do not understand science or medicine will get excited and disappointed in most cases.
And I feel bad, if someone actually is waiting for a cure and it turns out it doesn't work like the media portrayed it to be. Nobody wins.
the media wins.
You could think so, but how many people distrust media nowadays? Media is losing too, they haven't just noticed it yet.
you are rite...same will happen in media
they surely did
Part of the problem with the media's representation of science is that they don't understand it themselves. One of the most most fundamental rules - "correlation does not equal causation" - is blatantly disregarded in media coverage. I find this especially true for longitudinal or cohort studies, where they are trying to identify risk factors, but then the media reports every other day that drinking a glass of wine will extend your lifespan/shorten your lifespan.
Science could do a better job explaining things and translating things into a way that people can understand and people need to become better consumers of science and educate themselves on how research is presented. It is a two way street to ensure that we start winning!
That's true, regular media is also willing to cover topics they do not typically handle and journalists writing about the topics rarely know very much about the topic they write about. At worst, they are just copying another article of the topic and dropping a part out.
But at best, the articles can contain references to the original study so readers who are interested can find the studies and see through them themselves.
isn't it better to get some overall worthless medicine than not even getting something that might work for some individuals?
I'm not sure if I understood this, so can you rephrase this so I can comment properly? :)
something that will work for some is better than nothing
Ah. Well I'm assuming there is little interest in producing a medicine which works only for a small portion of people, as it would be useless for the most.
i really don't know who is this nobody ..but you are the winner for me ..
yes, I agree to your post, placebo effect tends to trick people’s mind