That is a poor definition. Scientific research is based upon hypotheses rather than facts. The only field of science in which you can actually prove a theory is mathematics.
Having been somewhat negative in my previous postings, I should really mention my own example of stuff that I take that is not scientifically proven to help.
I am strong in the arthritis, like my mother before me. Several decades ago I started taking Glucosamine, and have continued to take it ever since. A decade or two later I persuaded my mother to try it. She took it for two weeks and said “it has no effect”. I persuaded her to try it for longer, and a few years later when she went interstate she forgot to take her tablets with her and reported back that “It works!”
There is - at best - mixed evidence for the efficacy of Glucosamine in managing arthritis, but I am reasonably confident that my own would be far worse by now if I had not started taking it early and often - and my mother has also joined the cheer-leading squad based on her own experiences.
" “We did not prove an association between measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve the issues. If there is a causal link between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and this syndrome, a rising incidence might be anticipated after the introduction of this vaccine in the UK in 1988. Published evidence is inadequate to show whether there is a change…”
Glucosamine is one of the building blocks of joints. So it may not be the most effective solution for those already experiencing pain (although it’s constantly sold as this). Where it comes into effect is when it’s taken over an extended period of time for people or animals at risk of developing/worsening conditions.
I actually learned about this in the context of animals though through my work in the area as well as general veterinary advice. So it’s definitely worth taking any claims with a grain of salt when it comes to humans.
I have yet to meet a doctor who has a good knowledge of even quite common supplements, so telling him/her what you intend to take is pointless. They have probably never heard of it.
I became quite ill after taking a prescribed medication. My doc refused to accept the medication was the cause, even though I could tick several boxes on the side effects page. I saw another doctor, who agreed it was the medication that caused the problems, and diagnosed colitis. Apparently I could have it for life, as there was nothing he could recommend other than a ‘bland’ diet.
I did my research, went on a low fibre diet and took slippery elm before each meal. I was gradually able to add normal food, and was over the colitis in less than three months. This was not ulcerative colitis, an entirely different condition that really is difficult to cure.
It’s amazing what you can prove in mathematics - take zeta function regularisation and Ramanujan summation as ‘for instance’ Always makes me chuckle while thinking mathematicians are truly dark lords …
There are other theoritical sciences such as quantum physics/mechanics, astronomy/theoretical physics, theoretical neuroscience (there are possibly others but can’t think of anymore at the moment)… which test theories in different ways to traditional scientific testing methods. In some fields, they are building massively expensive test equipment to try and test some of the theories. It is not known if the equipment will be suitable until the go button is pushed.
There are also dozens of slightly different meaning of science…depending on the author of the meaning.
I took the term ‘facts’ as meaning evidence. Science can include the testing of hypotheses to gain such evidence. Science also includes other methods for evidence gathering such as observations (such as through a microscope) and physical measurement (such as parts of physics) and other techniques which don’t necessarily have a hypotheses. There have been many scientific discoveries from these techniques, particularly in the early history of science.
It does and is used in cancer and inflammatory diseases treatment and can be prescribed in Australia only by specialists and pharmacists registered with the Pharmion Risk Management Program. The risks associated with potential pregnancy needs to be managed.
More research info on its effacy can be found here.
I would talk to my pharmacist rather than doctor. Their job is to answer such questions and they make a study of it. You don’t have to be taking a supplement, there are foods (eg grapefruit) that alter how prescription drugs act.
Each GP will be influenced by their own experience and past patients. Personally if I have an issue I disagree with a GP on I get a second opinion. I’d argue that system is a safer bet. It’s yet to let me down
Also remember thinking of things from the doctors perspective. They likely have a dozen patients every week who claim they’ve ‘done their research’ but have totally got it wrong. That’s why we have doctors in the first place.
There is pure/theoretical mathematics and applied mathematics. In a modern sense there is an argument (and not one of scientific research) neither are science. Once that definition is accepted all work within the field of mathematics is literally ‘unscientific’?
Mathematics stands alone as an independent discipline. It is abstract or virtual, only attaining a physical presence when another non mathematical reality is to be observed or considered. Bitcoin might be a great analogy. They exist only as numbers and you can’t hold one.
Importantly, doubtful or unscientific research typically makes extensive use of mathematics in ways similar to scientific research. Mathematics is a tool, just as writing and language are tools. Mathematics is another way of describing something or reporting an observation.
Mathematics can be used to describe physical relationships observed in the real world. This contributes to one form of proof in science. It is a very different form of proof to that of relationships within mathematics. EG the relationship between sine, cosine, and tangent for a right angled triangle.
Mathematics only fails when it is connected in some way to the real world. Hence it deserves it’s unique place separate to science. As a tool for
delivering proof of science mathematics is blind. It will deliver a result when part of unscientific research just as dependably as for any other instance. Mathematics cannot even assure Blockchain results, because block chain is not pure mathematics in it’s entirety.
There is an very startling observation in this item from the ABC.
“The test we currently use for urinary tract infections is primitive and has never been properly validated,” says Professor James Malone-Lee, a world leader in the study of chronic UTIs.
“We’re still using the same test we were using 70 years ago.”
It should be no surprise the article suggests the current testing is failing to identify the condition in more than 50% of instances for women.
There is a logical assumption the same applies for men, although a far less frequent condition.
Was the basis of the current diagnosis methods the result of unscientific research?
I would say it is far more complex. Eventhough a test may have been around for a while, it could be still the most convenient, cost effective and quick turn around method (having a uti causes discomfort for the patient and quicker treatment means symptoms disappear quicker).
I suspect that many GP don’t do a urine test…while others would be limited to cloudy urine test. One can get a baterial count but this takes time. S9me use dipsticks which are not overly accurate.
There are also new emrging tests…
Also burning during urination could also be a non-uti condition…
Maybe a trip to a specialist urologist would be advised rather than a GP trying to diagnose.
Whenever you read that something uses ‘military-grade encryption’, run the other way. The encryption method is only half the story - implementation is key, and is really hard to get right.
It is more complex. Dipstick tests look for common signs of UTI. These include blood, pH, other urine components and an indication of the amounts in the solution. Then the next steps are more complex and will take hours and can take up to a day or two and finally you get results. Then if they have to culture it this can take several days. From my own personal experience it took them 4 days to identify my infection. The early tests they can perform while good for most cases do not always pick up the infection that a person may have.
This topic has been drifting to and from the explicit topic to proposed examples of the topic. Here is a timely item about the more obvious ways to spot questionable research, using an example.
Always makes me chuckle while thinking mathematicians are truly dark lords …