[dr461]

Hey folks,

I know I have been a bit short-tempered when people bring up "studies" that they read,and I am sorry for it. I'd like to bring up the procedure for those studies, and why you should not be reading them and worrying. If you insist on reading them--great, but know where they come from, and the bias that goes with them. I've been an academic for many years, and I know the work behind doing research papers (not a medical researcher in my past, but the methodology is exactly the same in all fields).

Research MDs, and Biomedical researchers (use that as a catch all for non- MD researchers) have contracts. In order to get tenure as a professor or senior researcher ,and to continue to be promoted, one MUST write. It isn't optional, it is a condition of employment. So, research papers and articles must be turned out, and you are judged by the number and quality of the publications to which you submit. I have been through that, and I know the drill.

So, as a research person, you have to pick a topic. The topic must be original, or new ground breaking clarification of an old topic. So, you try and find something catchy and interesting that will get published. Okay, so you get approval to do this research from the powers that be.

After that, unless it is a total "opinion piece," you need to do some statistical research. Now, where do you do this research under tight times? Well, you get data together--quickly and in a rather disorganized manner--you do studies and compile data.

Some of it is very good data; lots of it are total crap. You set up "perameters" for the study and then tailor your questions and statistical analysis to what you have. it would be nice if you did the stat work FIRST, so as to have a "good study," but it doesn't happen that way.

Okay, so you are a researcher and you are writing on PVCs, which has been done thousands of times, and the general consensus is that they are harmless by themselves. So, what point of view are you gonna take to be original? Yep, you got it--you will take the point of view that PVCs are horrible, nasty, awful. After all, nobody has written much about that, as it has been debunked as false. So you devise a study to prove that point--not a study to find out the truth, but to back up your theory--right or wrong.

Then, you run the surveys you collect on your subjects (called 'n" for the number of them in the study--usually small, as who has time to fine a lot of people to study??). Now, where do you look to find subjects to "prove" that PVCs are harmful?

Yes, you select hospital cases, elderly people, and people who have had heart trouble. Why would you do something as biased as that? Because that is where the data you want for the study exists--not in healthy folks walking around with PVCs--heck, lots of them have thousands a day and don't even know it. Don't believe me? Ask any cardiologist--they have studied more than any researcher as they actually get these patients.

Then you publish this faulty gem, and it gets presented. Obviously, it creates a lot of controversy in the medical community. Most sensible people condemn it as crap, which it is due to the method. It is not an objective "double blind" study, where you have control groups who don't have PVCs. It isn't like a drug study that requires scrupulous testing. Remember, this is academic work, not rocket science. However, some read it and choose to believe it.

I hope this has made it a bit more clear about some of the stuff that all of us have been googling in order to find out about PVCs. What is the answer to all of this? TRUST YOUR OWN DOCTOR, and don't read someone else's crap, as it is probably academic trash.

[ctcsmith]

Amen!

[shellylabelle]

Thank you David!

[Susie]

Wow, thanks for posting, that is so comforting to know. I feel better now.