Progress in health research
All domains of human knowledge are evolving in the hands of forward-thinking individuals with access to modern tools, the skill to use them and the drive to pursue new frontiers.
The difference faces of research.
“For decades, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been the gold standard for determining which drugs, devices, and surgical procedures doctors should use. These studies find averages across large groups of people. While RCTs have helped identify better treatments, they often overlook important individual differences. For example, someone who is stressed or eats poorly may respond very differently to a treatment than someone who exercises daily.”
I found the above paragraph in an Epoch Times article entitled ‘18% Drop in LDL Cholesterol’ which tells the story of Harvard Medical student Nick Norwitz who holds a doctorate in physiology from Oxford. He recently completed and reported a personal health experiment that captured widespread public attention. In just one month, he ate 720 eggs in 30 days highlighting a trend in N=1 scientific research.
To point out the significance of Nick’s experiment, I asked BING Copilot to list the various research approaches commonly in use.
Sent by Copilot:
In health-related scientific investigations, researchers commonly use several approaches to gather and analyze data. Here are the main ones:
Quantitative Research: This approach involves the collection and analysis of numerical data to identify patterns, relationships, or trends. It often includes methods like surveys, experiments, and statistical analysis.
Qualitative Research: This approach focuses on understanding human experiences and behaviors through non-numerical data. Methods include interviews, focus groups, and observations, aiming to provide deeper insights into participants’ perspectives.
Mixed Methods Research: This combines both quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a comprehensive understanding of the research problem. It allows for the integration of numerical data with detailed contextual information.
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs): Considered the gold standard in clinical research, RCTs involve randomly assigning participants to either the treatment group or the control group to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions.
Cohort Studies: These observational studies follow a group of people over time to assess how certain exposures affect outcomes. They can be prospective (following participants into the future) or retrospective (looking back at past data).
Case-Control Studies: These studies compare individuals with a specific condition (cases) to those without the condition (controls) to identify factors that may contribute to the condition.
Cross-Sectional Studies: These studies analyze data from a population at a single point in time to identify prevalence and relationships between variables.
Case Studies: These in-depth analyses focus on a single case or a small group of cases, providing detailed information about complex issues in real-life contexts.
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: These methods synthesize results from multiple studies to provide a high-level overview of evidence on a particular topic. Systematic reviews follow a structured approach to identify and evaluate relevant studies, while meta-analyses use statistical techniques to combine data from these studies.
Ethnography: This qualitative method involves the researcher immersing themselves in a community or group to observe and interpret cultural and social interactions.
Each of these approaches has its strengths and is chosen based on the research question, objectives, and the type of data needed.
Notice that the N=1 approach does not appear on this list.
What is Medicine 3.0?
Dr. Peter Attia coined the term Medicine 3.0 described here.
It acknowledges the reality of every human being in the planet - we are all unique.
Traditional medicine did not have the investigative, analytical and precision advantages of contemporary technology to perform the miracles of modern science that we enjoy today in the Digital Age.
“Doctor Livingstone, I presume”
The early days of health research were “pioneering” in more than one sense of the term. David Livingston comes to mind.
Since David’s era, research has evolved spectacularly and been performed in many different ways as listed above. Research-developed treatments from the Medicine 1.0 and 2.0 eras have continued to improve and are reliable “fixes” in many cases but “hit & miss” in others. However, many of their “one size fits all” remedies fail to help a smallish number of patients who appear at the wrong end of the Bell Curve.
Peter Attia MD is a leading voice and practitioner of Medicine 3.0. Like many pioneers of the past, he will likely be under-appreciated today by the majority who have become complacent with Medicine 2.0 and trusting of its practitioners.
As modern research continues to show that even the most traditionally trusted medicines, like aspirin, are contra-indicated for some people, Medicine 3.0 will surely become the path that an increasing number on patients and their preferred health advisors (and medical practitioners) may take.
Medicine 3.0 may be the road less travelled today but it is sure to become the yellow brick road of the future.