|
|
|
|
enigma
Apr 13, 2011, 9:19 AM
Post #501 of 509
(2743 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
chadnsc wrote: enigma wrote: aprice00 wrote: TarHeelEMT wrote: In reply to: I didn't realize you were talking about alcohol. I thought you were talking about HDL-C per se Haha, no. My fault for not being more clear. In reply to: Right. I never said I was certain. You said I was certain. I'm pretty sure what got me going was the statement " For one thing, because it increases serum HDL-cholesterol, so it's protective against heart disease.," since it doesn't necessarily follow that anything that raises HDL is protective against heart disease. You did acknowledge that it was more complicated than that, so I probably didn't give you enough credit for nuance. In reply to: I agree that it's not proven, but I think that the phrase "only hypothesized" is misleading. It depends. I'm ok with saying it, because to me the word hypothesis implies at least a reasonable body of evidence, with many carrying a substantial body of evidence. Different people have different understandings of the term, though, and I suppose RC.com is not a place where you'd assume I was speaking with that understanding. Kind of a moot point for the topic but since when does a hypothesis imply "a reasonable body of evidence"? It doesn't even depend on you definition of reasonable. The term hypothesis, especially in the scientific field has Zero contingencies on evidence. Really a hypothesis can be a total shot in the dark. A hypothesis can be merely conjecture. I know its just semantics but you need to be right when you try to take an authoritative position. Yes, Of course ! Give me a break. You didn't understand anything in the above post.
All hypothesis is an explanation for the occurrence of some observation, or scientific problem you expect to happen through testing.
You make an experiment and then test the theory, conjecture refers to an inference, judgment or guesswork based on inconclusive or incomplete evidence.
In this particular discussion it refers to increasing serum HDL-cholesterol so it is protective against heart disease.
( TarHeelEmt- is acknowledging that he didn't realize
that it was about alcohol.) He thought that the discussion was in reference to HDL-C per/se.
Additionally, he is saying that since serum HDL-cholesterol is protective against heart disease, it doesn't necessarily follow that anything that raises HDL is protective against heart disease,
Acknowledging that there are other variables /nuances involved, and it is more complicated .
Finally. the argument hinges on what is being put forth is only an hypothesis, so it can be a total shot in the dark.
It could be just conjecture, which is guesswork or incomplete evidence.
Thereby, the poster is saying that you need to be right. Since when you take an authoritative position since it could be misleading. .
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Apr 13, 2011, 9:25 AM
Post #502 of 509
(2741 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
jt512 wrote: TarHeelEMT wrote: I'm pretty sure what got me going was the statement " For one thing, because [alcohol] increases serum HDL-cholesterol, so it's protective against heart disease.," since it doesn't necessarily follow that anything that raises HDL is protective against heart disease. I agree that it doesn't necessarily follow, but alcohol does raise HDL-C, and raising HDL-C is cardioprtotective. Therefore, alcohol consumption would be expected to lower heart disease risk, and to do so by raising HDL-C. In principle, alcohol could not be cardioprotective if it had an offsetting adverse affect on heart disease risk by some other mechanism. However, epidemiological evidence consistently shows that those who drink alcohol have lower rates of heart disease than non-drinkers, so there is no evidence for such an offsetting detrimental effect. Jay
Well , This sounds right.
|
|
|
|
|
aprice00
Apr 13, 2011, 5:15 PM
Post #503 of 509
(2711 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 7, 2010
Posts: 167
|
TarHeelEMT wrote: A hypothesis has to be consistent with available evidence.
This is where I disagree. A hypothesis does not need to be supported, but since you said
TarHeelEMT wrote: to me the word hypotheses implies at least a reasonable body of evidence
I cant really say your opinion is wrong.
The only problem I had was you implying that the scientific community has the same interpretation of the word.
Ultimatly I agree that most hypothesis from creditable scientists are formed in light of supporting information.
Edit: Sp
(This post was edited by aprice00 on Apr 13, 2011, 6:56 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Apr 14, 2011, 3:47 AM
Post #504 of 509
(2683 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
aprice00 wrote: TarHeelEMT wrote: A hypothesis has to be consistent with available evidence. This is where I disagree. A hypothesis does not need to be supported, but since you said TarHeelEMT wrote: to me the word hypotheses implies at least a reasonable body of evidence I cant really say your opinion is wrong. The only problem I had was you implying that the scientific community has the same interpretation of the word. Ultimatly I agree that most hypothesis from creditable scientists are formed in light of supporting information. Edit: Sp
So, what do you disagree with?
Or are you just going around in circles with the word hypothesis and the scientific community?
|
|
|
|
|
TarHeelEMT
May 26, 2011, 10:23 PM
Post #505 of 509
(2623 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724
|
This came out today, and I figured it was worth putting on here as a reminder for why caution is advised when talking about why something works in medicine.
http://news.yahoo.com/...med_cholesterol_drug
The NIH just stopped the most powerful niacin study to date because although it raised HDL significantly, it didn't reduce heart attacks or angioplasties and actually led to a small increase in strokes.
With alcohol and cardioprotection, there is a lot more to the story than HDL. It's easy to point our fingers at HDL levels of alcohol users and say we've found our answer because it fits with theory, but we can't say for certain until we sort out why artificially modifying HDL levels by other means doesn't work.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
May 27, 2011, 6:05 AM
Post #506 of 509
(2579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
TarHeelEMT wrote: This came out today, and I figured it was worth putting on here as a reminder for why caution is advised when talking about why something works in medicine. http://news.yahoo.com/...med_cholesterol_drug The NIH just stopped the most powerful niacin study to date because although it raised HDL significantly, it didn't reduce heart attacks or angioplasties and actually led to a small increase in strokes. With alcohol and cardioprotection, there is a lot more to the story than HDL. It's easy to point our fingers at HDL levels of alcohol users and say we've found our answer because it fits with theory, but we can't say for certain until we sort out why artificially modifying HDL levels by other means doesn't work.
Well that's too bad . It would have been good if the niacin lowered this risk of heart attacks. and it was odd that a small percentage actually had more strokes.
Maybe they didn't do a control for the diets within the group! Or I don't see smoking, or other factors mentioned. Could be a flawed study without double blind controls included.
|
|
|
|
|
gmggg
May 27, 2011, 1:24 PM
Post #507 of 509
(2560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 25, 2009
Posts: 2099
|
enigma wrote: TarHeelEMT wrote: This came out today, and I figured it was worth putting on here as a reminder for why caution is advised when talking about why something works in medicine. http://news.yahoo.com/...med_cholesterol_drug The NIH just stopped the most powerful niacin study to date because although it raised HDL significantly, it didn't reduce heart attacks or angioplasties and actually led to a small increase in strokes. With alcohol and cardioprotection, there is a lot more to the story than HDL. It's easy to point our fingers at HDL levels of alcohol users and say we've found our answer because it fits with theory, but we can't say for certain until we sort out why artificially modifying HDL levels by other means doesn't work. Well that's too bad . It would have been good if the niacin lowered this risk of heart attacks. and it was odd that a small percentage actually had more strokes. Maybe they didn't do a control for the diets within the group! Or I don't see smoking, or other factors mentioned. Could be a flawed study without double blind controls included.
I'd be amused to hear what you think this means.
|
|
|
|
|
enigma
Jun 22, 2011, 8:53 AM
Post #508 of 509
(2497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 19, 2002
Posts: 2279
|
gmggg wrote: enigma wrote: TarHeelEMT wrote: This came out today, and I figured it was worth putting on here as a reminder for why caution is advised when talking about why something works in medicine. http://news.yahoo.com/...med_cholesterol_drug The NIH just stopped the most powerful niacin study to date because although it raised HDL significantly, it didn't reduce heart attacks or angioplasties and actually led to a small increase in strokes. With alcohol and cardioprotection, there is a lot more to the story than HDL. It's easy to point our fingers at HDL levels of alcohol users and say we've found our answer because it fits with theory, but we can't say for certain until we sort out why artificially modifying HDL levels by other means doesn't work. Well that's too bad . It would have been good if the niacin lowered this risk of heart attacks. and it was odd that a small percentage actually had more strokes. Maybe they didn't do a control for the diets within the group! Or I don't see smoking, or other factors mentioned. Could be a flawed study without double blind controls included.I'd be amused to hear what you think this means.
All it means is the subject (person) dosen't know if they are getting niacin/medicine or the placebo.
As well as the research staff that are giving out the placebo or in this case niacin (or whatever supplement or medicine).
This is done to help insure the study is not accidentally/unconsciously (influenced by either the participants or the research study staff).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
