Good morning! Back again.
I am sure you have noticed that this site has a real emphasis on information and research. We value the power that knowledge can give us. We also value the scientific method.
Some people may ask why that may be. It’s simple. The scientific method and controlled experiments allow us to know with a degree of certainty what is true and what works. Things are proven to within a shadow of a doubt.
Scientific method and scientific proof stand in contrast to anecdotal evidence. I would assume many of you know what anecdotal evidence is. However, for those who do not, allow me to take the podium for a second.
Wikipedia defines anecdotal evidence as evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. For example, “The world is flat.”
600 years ago everyone knew the world was flat. You look out on the horizon and everything just drops off. Terra incognita. Proceed at your own risk because you know you’re going to fall off. (Did you ever wonder what they thought you were going to fall off into? Just a random thought there.)
It took some intrepid explorers to go out and discover there was something beyond the horizon. They came back and told people just that. However, it was still anecdotal evidence. A handful of crazy sailors telling you that the world was round. It did, in fact, take a variety of explorers taking a variety of voyages (read performing experiments) to actually convince people that the world is round. These explorers proved to within a shadow of a doubt the world was round.
And you know what? I for one am glad people did not necessarily believe that handful of sailors. We should not accept everything without proof.
Very often, this reliance on anecdotal evidence happens in medicine. It happens to people looking for ways to treat their age related macular degeneration.
We hear testimonials all the time. “Take this and you will be cured!” “It worked for my great aunt Tilly”! That someone truly believes a treatment worked for them is great. However, without scientific evidence we are not able to review it.
Nor should we. Operating on anecdotal evidence can be dangerous. Not only may you hurt yourself doing something dangerous, you could also waste valuable resources – yours and everyone else’s – on something with no value.
Why do we only talk about things that have come from clinical trials? Because the trials are controlled. That means they have tried to eliminate any confounding variables. Confounding variables are things that are outside influences that change the effects of the treatment. In other words with confounding variables we have no idea if what we tried worked. The results could come from something else entirely.
For example, you are going on a diet to lose weight. At the same time you also start walking two miles four days a week and take exercises classes three days a week. How much effect did your new diet exactly have? No way to tell, right? There are confounding variables.
Before we review anything and suggest the treatment may be promising, it needs research backing it up. We operate that way because it is the best way. We need to provide you with the best information we can. The best comes from clinical trials.
Written March 4th, 2018