Wissenschaftsjournalist Gary Taubes hat sich in der NY Times unter dem Titel "
Do We Really Know What Makes Us Healthy?" mit den Lebenszyklen von Gesundheitsversprechen und angeblichen Forschungsergebnissen auseinandergesetzt. Er zeigt sehr schön auf, warum die von Journalisten so gern kolportierten "neuesten Erkenntnisse der Forschung" nebst den daraus resultierenden Empfehlungen für oder gegen dieses oder jenes zyklischen Rhythmen unterliegen und warum "observational studies", also Studien die aus der reinen Beobachtung bestimmter Verhaltensweisen resultieren, denkbar ungeeignet sind um zutreffende Aussagen über Ursachen von Krankheiten und deren Vermeidung zu machen.
Richard Peto, professor of medical statistics and epidemiology at Oxford University, phrases the nature of the conflict this way: “Epidemiology is so beautiful and provides such an important perspective on human life and death, but an incredible amount of rubbish is published,” by which he means the results of observational studies that appear daily in the news media and often become the basis of public-health recommendations about what we should or should not do to promote our continued good health.
In January 2001, the British epidemiologists George Davey Smith and Shah Ebrahim, co-editors of The International Journal of Epidemiology, discussed this issue in an editorial titled “Epidemiology — Is It Time to Call It a Day?” They noted that those few times that a randomized trial had been financed to test a hypothesis supported by results from these large observational studies, the hypothesis either failed the test or, at the very least, the test failed to confirm the hypothesis: antioxidants like vitamins E and C and beta carotene did not prevent heart disease, nor did eating copious fiber protect against colon cancer.
The Nurses’ Health Study is the most influential of these cohort studies, and in the six years since the Davey Smith and Ebrahim editorial, a series of new trials have chipped away at its credibility. The Women’s Health Initiative hormone-therapy trial failed to confirm the proposition that H.R.T. prevented heart disease; a W.H.I. diet trial with 49,000 women failed to confirm the notion that fruits and vegetables protected against heart disease; a 40,000-woman trial failed to confirm that a daily regimen of low-dose aspirin prevented colorectal cancer and heart attacks in women under 65. And this June, yet another clinical trial — this one of 1,000 men and women with a high risk of colon cancer — contradicted the inference from the Nurses’s study that folic acid supplements reduced the risk of colon cancer. Rather, if anything, they appear to increase risk.
Der Artikel ist sehr lang aber extrem lesenswert!
