Searching for scientific evidence

Several Canadian Cancer research centers and universities as well as centers like the Workers Compensation Boards (WCBs) are planning to compile data on cancer and the environment, including lifestyles like diet, stress management, exercise, night work shifts, and especially agents with proven  carcinogenic properties.Epidemiologists, would agree that such knowledge could prove extremely helpful in the field of carcinogenesis as well as the development of other medical diseases. Medical officers employed by WCBs also would find such data very pertinent and helpful in their adjudication of claimants with malignancies - provided of course there is scientific support. However as I discuss later in this blog experiments to support such claims may be difficult.

Epidemiological studies also require the cooperation of many workers in the healthcare field. As a Medical Officer working at the Worker's Compensation Board of Manitoba I often found - especially in the case of soft tissue injuries - that the submitted medical reports from their attending physicians contained very little information about the duration of injury, what made the injury symptoms better and/or worse, his or her life style, dietary history, details of the workplace environment, and so on. Even if these doctors could be trained and compensated I predict that they would be reluctant to provide such data. Collection of such data unless supportive by scientific experimentation could only be classified as correlative. We know that correlation does not mean causation.

Then there is the  question of the evaluation of the scientific evidence. The gold standard for scientific proof is random selection and the standard double blind study where neither the investigator nor the "subjects" know the nature of the investigation. In my view, it is impossible to design such experiments and have it interpreted as scientific proof.

As I have mentioned in earlier blogs, the "gold standard" also has its short comings. With the thousands of physiological processes going on in our human bodies, the variability in our diets, and life styles like exercise and even differences in work ethic, it would be virtually impossible to design an experimental model to conduct research that meets this gold standard.

Let me briefly cite just one example namely vitamin D deficiency of the elderly. Epidemiologists have found that elderly patients often have low levels of Vitamin D (both D3 and D2) in their blood or serum. (Note: always take Vitamin D with a meal that includes Fat.) According to information in the Life Extension Newsletters (2011-12) the investigators found most patients suffering from Alzheimer's also were deficient in Vitamin D.

Now suppose gerontologists conducting experiments to test the potential beneficial effects of their new wonder drug in relieving the symptoms of dementia had divided their patients so that, by chance, the dementia patients were Vitamin D deficient but the controls were not. In such a scenario their wonder drug would be a failure in relieving symptoms of dementia - unless of course  their "wonder drug" was none other than the sunshine hormone Vitamin D! In such an experiment it would appear that the results were influenced - if not solely dependent - on whether the subjects were or were not Vitamin D deficient.

This argument could apply to most of the so called gold standard clinical trials. Suppose many of the "reviewing scientists " in attempting to either verify and/or disprove the initial earlier clinical trials and do not take into account the factor of nutritional status of their subjects. The same argument also applies of course to the scientists who conducted the initial experiments.

To those scientists that I referred to in the opening statement of this blog, who plan to accumulate their data re: cancer and the environment, I would recommend that they may also wish to do an internet search on nutrient supplements - like the Vitamins E for cancer, C for cancer, the common cold and polio (Dr. Klenners' research in 1949 cited by Dr. Clifford-Jones. Nov 23, 2012 Winnipeg Free Press report), and Vitamin K and autism in several reports by Life Extension foundation.

Hopefully this blog would assist these investigators not only in appreciating the complexity and immensity of such a study, but also to avoid those scientific pitfalls by omitting certain common environmental factors which may not be too obvious.