Beyond RCTs and the Bradford Hill Criteria- I think there’s a problem here.

I put this to ChatGPT: (please note that I need to point out that my words on ultra-processed food in this text are my own opinions, not medical facts or advice. They stem from my beliefs that they are disastrous for health)

“The Bradford Hill criteria give too much precedence to expensive, impractical trials, and as such, the criteria have the net effect of impeding medical practice responses to the epidemic of chronic disease. Discuss”

It came back to me promptly

The Bradford Hill criteria, established by the English epidemiologist Sir Austin Bradford Hill, are a set of nine principles used to establish epidemiologic evidence of a causal relationship between a presumed cause and an observed effect1These criteria include strength, consistency, specificity, temporality, biological gradient, plausibility, coherence, experiment, and analogy2.

Your statement suggests that the Bradford Hill criteria may prioritize expensive and impractical trials, potentially hindering responses to chronic diseases. Let’s examine this in more detail:

  1. Expensive and Impractical Trials: The Bradford Hill criteria do not inherently prioritize expensive or impractical trials. They are a set of principles used to evaluate the strength of evidence, not the cost or practicality of the research. However, it’s true that some types of studies (like randomized controlled trials) can be costly and time-consuming, but they are also often considered the gold standard in research due to their ability to establish causality.
  2. Impeding Responses to Chronic Diseases: The Bradford Hill criteria have been applied to chronic diseases, such as the link between repetitive head impacts and chronic traumatic encephalopathy3. While rigorous research is necessary to establish causality and inform treatment, it’s also true that this process can be slow. In the face of a chronic disease epidemic, there may be a need for more agile responses.
  3. Balancing Rigor and Responsiveness: The challenge lies in balancing the need for rigorous, evidence-based medicine (which the Bradford Hill criteria support) with the need for timely, effective responses to public health crises. This is a complex issue with no easy solutions. It’s important to continue refining research methodologies and criteria like those of Bradford Hill to better serve the evolving needs of public health.

In conclusion, while the Bradford Hill criteria play a crucial role in establishing causal relationships in epidemiology, it’s essential to consider their application within the broader context of public health, particularly when dealing with chronic diseases. The balance between rigorous scientific investigation and the practical needs of public health responses is a delicate one, and ongoing discussions like these are vital for its maintenance.

But there’s an immediate and striking problem with the assumptions here so I continued:

This assumes that proving causality is an important precursor to interventions. Simple observation often obviates the need for RCTs, especially when interventions are complex. If they work (disease averted or reversed), causality proof can be bypassed. What’s wrong with this argument?

In the following response, it raised the obvious problem with potentially “harmful” interventions, overlooking that harmful interventions resulting from RCTs abound. It also raised some hollow objections based on the following “issues”

Your argument raises an important point about the practicality of interventions and the role of observational evidence in public health. However, there are a few potential issues with bypassing the proof of causality:

  1. Confounding Factors: Observational studies are often subject to confounding factors. These are variables that are related to both the treatment and the outcome, which can lead to misleading associations. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are designed to control for these confounders, providing more reliable evidence of causality.
  2. Placebo Effect: The placebo effect is a psychological phenomenon where patients improve simply because they believe they are receiving treatment. Without a control group, as in an RCT, it’s difficult to separate the effects of the treatment from the placebo effect.
  3. Replicability: Proving causality through rigorous methods like RCTs ensures that the results are replicable. This is crucial for the scientific process and for ensuring that interventions are effective across different populations and contexts.
  4. Ethical Considerations: While it might seem beneficial to implement interventions that appear to work, doing so without solid evidence of causality can lead to ethical issues. For example, if an intervention is widely adopted based on observational evidence but later found to be ineffective or harmful, this could have serious implications for public trust and health.

While RCTs are not always feasible or necessary, and observational evidence can play a valuable role in public health, it’s important to consider these factors when deciding whether to bypass the proof of causality. The goal should always be to provide the safest and most effective interventions based on the best available evidence.

I felt obliged to respond, choosing to ignore the “implications for public trust and health” which are at an all time low due to the worldwide Covid response and the epidemic of paternalistic health approaches.

All of those criticisms are system based, not person centred. Confounding factors are irrelevant to the patient who is improving. Placebo effect is a fantastic elixir for the same person and it’s safer than any pharmaceutical. Replicability isn’t an issue if the intervention is safe and lack of effectiveness is a moot objection – just move on and try something new if it’s not working. Ethical objections are moot if there’s routine open disclosure.

You bring up a very important perspective, focusing on the individual patient’s experience rather than the system as a whole. This patient-centered approach is indeed a crucial aspect of healthcare. Let’s consider your points:

  1. Confounding Factors: From an individual’s perspective, improvement is what matters most, regardless of the underlying factors. However, understanding these factors can be important for predicting and managing future health outcomes.
  2. Placebo Effect: The placebo effect can indeed be powerful and beneficial. It’s a testament to the mind-body connection and the role of perception in health. However, relying solely on the placebo effect might limit the exploration and application of potentially more effective treatments.
  3. Replicability: If an intervention is safe and appears to work for one individual, it might be tempting to bypass the need for replicability. However, what works for one person might not work for another due to biological variability. Replicability ensures that treatments are generally effective, not just effective in specific instances.
  4. Ethics: Open disclosure is indeed a cornerstone of ethical practice. Patients should be fully informed about the treatments they receive. However, ethics in healthcare also involves ensuring that treatments are evidence-based and have been shown to be effective in rigorous studies.

While the system-based approach and the person-centered approach might seem at odds, they are both crucial parts of healthcare. The challenge lies in integrating these two perspectives to provide care that is both evidence-based and responsive to individual patients’ experiences and needs. It’s a complex issue with ongoing debate in the medical and scientific community. Your points add valuable insights to this discussion. Thank you for sharing them.

You keep saying “they play a crucial role”. Is this a cultural belief, or can you back it up with evidence that RCTs in health have been beneficial in net effect? Please keep the ultraprocessed food science forefront in your answer.

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) are often referred to as the “gold standard” in clinical research1They are designed to minimize bias and provide the most reliable form of evidence about the effectiveness of an intervention21. Here are some reasons why RCTs are considered beneficial:

  1. Minimizing Bias: RCTs use randomization to prevent the skewing or deliberate manipulation of results, which is known as selection bias1. This ensures that the groups being compared are similar except for the intervention they receive, which helps isolate the effect of the intervention.
  2. Establishing Causality: RCTs are one of the few research designs that can provide compelling evidence of a cause-effect relationship3. This is crucial in determining whether a treatment is truly effective or if the observed effects are due to other factors.
  3. Informing Guidelines and Policies: The results of RCTs often inform clinical guidelines and health policies2. They provide robust evidence that can guide decision-making in healthcare.

Regarding ultraprocessed foods, RCTs have contributed significantly to our understanding of their impact on health. For instance, the first RCT in 2019 found a causal relationship between ultraprocessed food consumption and weight gain4This study and others like it have prompted policy responses from national governments across the world4.

However, it’s important to note that while RCTs have many strengths, they are not without limitations. They can be expensive, time-consuming, and may not always be feasible or ethical. Furthermore, RCTs are not the only source of valuable evidence. Observational studies, cohort studies, case-control studies, and others all contribute to the body of evidence that informs our understanding of health and disease.

In conclusion, while RCTs play a crucial role in health research, it’s essential to consider the entire body of evidence, including studies on ultraprocessed foods, when making health recommendations and policies. Your points highlight the importance of this comprehensive, evidence-based approach. Thank you for bringing them up.

Can you shift your paradigm here? I want a critical analysis of the application of science to the progress of humankind. You keep reverting to “science-speak”, and your justifications are thereby circular.

I understand your request for a shift in perspective. Let’s critically analyze the application of science to the progress of humankind, stepping away from the usual scientific jargon.

Science has undeniably been a driving force in human progress. It has allowed us to understand the world around us, cure diseases, improve quality of life, and even reach the moon. However, it’s not without its drawbacks.

Pros of Science:

  • Knowledge and Understanding: Science helps us understand the natural world. From the smallest particles to the vastness of the universe, science provides explanations and predictions.
  • Technological Advancements: Science fuels technological progress. Innovations in fields like medicine, engineering, and information technology have transformed our lives.
  • Problem-Solving: Science offers tools to solve complex problems, whether it’s tackling climate change or curing diseases.

Cons of Science:

  • Unintended Consequences: Scientific advancements can have unforeseen negative impacts. For example, the invention of plastic has led to a global pollution crisis.
  • Access and Inequality: The benefits of scientific progress aren’t evenly distributed. This can exacerbate social and economic inequalities.
  • Ethical Concerns: Scientific research can raise ethical questions, such as those surrounding genetic modification or data privacy.

As for the application of RCTs and other scientific methods, they are tools designed to seek truth and minimize error. However, they are part of a system created by humans, and thus, are subject to limitations and biases. The key is to continually question, refine, and evolve these tools in response to new information and perspectives.

In conclusion, while science has been instrumental in advancing society, it’s essential to critically examine its applications and impacts. The progress of humankind depends not just on scientific advancements, but also on our ability to navigate the ethical, social, and environmental implications of these advancements. Your points highlight the importance of this critical perspective. Thank you for bringing them up.

Despite all of that, ultraprocessed food is an unmitigated disaster, predicted well before 2019 by many. Science has delayed our response and the consequences are dire.

You’re absolutely right that the impact of ultraprocessed food on public health has been significant and concerning. It’s been linked to a range of health issues, including obesity, heart disease, and certain types of cancer.

The role of science in this is complex. On one hand, scientific research has been instrumental in revealing the health risks associated with ultraprocessed foods. On the other hand, the rigorous standards of scientific research, including the need for replicable results and peer review, can sometimes slow the speed at which these findings influence public health policies and consumer behavior.

Moreover, there are other factors at play, such as economic interests, marketing practices, and societal lifestyle changes, all of which have contributed to the rise in consumption of ultraprocessed foods.

It’s a stark reminder that while science is a powerful tool for understanding and addressing health issues, it’s not the only factor. Political, economic, and social considerations must also be taken into account when tackling complex public health challenges like this one.

Your points underscore the urgency of addressing the health impacts of ultraprocessed foods and the need for a multi-faceted approach. Thank you for this important discussion.

I think you’ve misunderstood my assertion here. Do you think that science had little to do with the development of ultraprocessed food?

I apologize if there was any misunderstanding. Science has indeed played a significant role in the development of ultraprocessed foods. Here’s how:

  1. Food Processing Technologies: Advances in food science and processing technology have enabled the manufacture of ultraprocessed foods12These technologies include fractioning of whole foods into substances, chemical modifications of these substances, assembly of unmodified and modified food substances, frequent use of cosmetic additives, and sophisticated packaging3.
  2. Food Reformulation: Scientists work with food companies to improve the health impacts of foods4They access processing technologies and understand the role of processing in a real-world environment4This collaboration has led to the reformulation of existing highly processed foods with the objectives of making them healthier and more sustainable2.
  3. Food Safety and Preservation: Food preparation involves processes like grinding, cooking, fermenting, and pasteurizing — methods that have long been used to make foods safer and more digestible, palatable, and storable5.

However, the development and widespread consumption of ultraprocessed foods have also led to health concerns. While science has contributed to the creation of these foods, it also plays a crucial role in studying their health impacts and informing public health recommendations.

It’s a complex issue with many factors at play, including economic interests, marketing practices, and societal lifestyle changes. Your points highlight the importance of critically examining the role of science in the development and consumption of ultraprocessed foods. Thank you for bringing up this important discussion.

So reconsidering the net effect of science on health, given it’s substantial role in development of ultraprocessed food?

The net effect of science on health is a complex issue, given its multifaceted role in both advancing health and contributing to the development of ultraprocessed foods.

Positive Impacts of Science on Health:

  • Medical Advances: Science has led to significant advancements in medicine, including the development of vaccines, antibiotics, and new treatments for diseases.
  • Healthcare Delivery: Scientific research has improved healthcare delivery systems, making them more efficient and effective.
  • Public Health: Epidemiological studies have informed public health policies and interventions, leading to improved health outcomes on a population level.

Negative Impacts of Science on Health:

  • Development of Ultraprocessed Foods: As you pointed out, scientific advancements have enabled the production of ultraprocessed foods, which are linked to numerous health issues, including obesity, heart disease, and diabetes.
  • Environmental Impact: Some scientific and technological advancements have contributed to environmental degradation, which indirectly impacts health.

It’s important to note that while science has played a role in the development of ultraprocessed foods, it also provides the tools to study their impact, raise awareness, and inform policy changes. The key is to use scientific knowledge responsibly and ethically, with the goal of improving health and wellbeing.

In conclusion, science has both positive and negative impacts on health. Its net effect is not universally good or bad, but rather context-dependent. It’s crucial to continue scrutinizing and refining scientific practices to maximize benefits and minimize harm. Your points underscore the importance of this critical perspective. Thank you for bringing them up.

Just to finish up, your take on the role of ultraprocessed food on the need for antibiotics, our declining microbiome quality, immunological resilience, and our increasing need for vaccines?

The consumption of ultraprocessed foods has been linked to a variety of health issues, and it’s plausible that it could influence the factors you mentioned:

  1. Need for Antibiotics: While there’s no direct evidence linking ultraprocessed food consumption to an increased need for antibiotics, these foods have been associated with health conditions that might require antibiotic treatment1Furthermore, the use of antibiotics in food production, particularly in animal agriculture, is a significant concern as it can lead to antibiotic resistance1.
  2. Microbiome Quality: Studies have found that higher intake of ultraprocessed foods causes unfavorable changes in the gut microbiota23These foods lack natural food structure, speeding their digestion in the stomach and small intestine, which can starve our natural gut bacteria42.
  3. Immunological Resilience: The impact of ultraprocessed foods on immunological resilience isn’t fully understood. However, these foods have been linked to chronic inflammation1, which can affect the immune system’s ability to respond effectively to pathogens. Moreover, the gut microbiota, which can be negatively affected by ultraprocessed foods, plays a crucial role in maintaining our immune system2.
  4. Increasing Need for Vaccines: There’s no direct evidence linking ultraprocessed food consumption to an increased need for vaccines. However, poor diet can weaken the immune system, potentially making vaccines less effective or increasing susceptibility to diseases that vaccines prevent56.

In conclusion, while more research is needed to fully understand these relationships, it’s clear that the consumption of ultraprocessed foods can have wide-ranging effects on health. Reducing the intake of these foods and promoting healthier dietary habits is an important public health goal7891011.

You quote “no direct evidence”. What about simple observation and incredibly consistent epidemiological associations. Why quote “direct evidence” here? Ironic as this sort of thinking is exactly how science delays response to an obvious problem. Can you see the irony here?

I see your point and the irony you’re highlighting. The phrase “direct evidence” is often used in scientific discourse to refer to evidence that unequivocally supports a certain conclusion. However, this doesn’t mean that other forms of evidence, such as observational data and epidemiological associations, are not valuable or informative. They absolutely are.

In fact, many public health interventions have been based on such evidence. For example, the link between smoking and lung cancer was first identified through observational studies, long before it could be “proven” in the laboratory.

The challenge lies in how we interpret and act on different types of evidence. In an ideal world, we would always have clear-cut, direct evidence before making decisions. But in reality, especially in matters of public health, we often need to act on the best available evidence, even if it’s not perfect.

Your points underscore the importance of not letting the pursuit of “direct evidence” delay necessary actions, especially when there’s consistent and compelling indirect evidence. This is indeed a valuable perspective in the ongoing discourse on the role of science in society. Thank you for bringing it up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.