Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease,

Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease, by Michael B. Bracken

When somebody must go to guide stores, search store by establishment, shelf by shelf, it is quite problematic. This is why we supply the book collections in this internet site. It will alleviate you to browse guide Risk, Chance, And Causation: Investigating The Origins And Treatment Of Disease, By Michael B. Bracken as you such as. By browsing the title, publisher, or authors of the book you really want, you could locate them quickly. In the house, workplace, or even in your means can be all best location within net connections. If you wish to download the Risk, Chance, And Causation: Investigating The Origins And Treatment Of Disease, By Michael B. Bracken, it is extremely simple then, considering that now we proffer the connect to buy as well as make deals to download Risk, Chance, And Causation: Investigating The Origins And Treatment Of Disease, By Michael B. Bracken So very easy!

Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease, by Michael B. Bracken

Ebook PDF Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease, by Michael B. Bracken

The press and other media constantly report news stories about dangerous chemicals in the environment, miracle cures, the safety of therapeutic treatments, and potential cancer-causing agents. But what exactly is actually meant by “increased risk”—should we worry if we are told that we are at twice the risk of developing an illness? And how do we interpret “reduced risk” to properly assess the benefits of noisily touted dietary supplements? Demonstrating the difficulty of separating the hype from the hypothesis, noted epidemiologist Michael Bracken clearly communicates how clinical epidemiology works. Using everyday terms, Bracken describes how professional scientists approach questions of disease causation and therapeutic efficacy to provide readers with the tools to help them understand whether warnings of environmental risk are truly warranted, or if claims of therapeutic benefit are justified.  

Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease, by Michael B. Bracken

• Amazon Sales Rank: #1424462 in Books
• Published on: 2015-09-29
• Original language: English
• Number of items: 1
• Dimensions: 8.80" h x .80" w x 5.70" l, .0 pounds
• Binding: Paperback
• 344 pages

Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease, by Michael B. Bracken

Review “Risk, Chance, and Causation is remarkable for a text covering such technical and scientific subject matter…Bracken provides his audience with an engaging, entertaining and educational read.”—Audrey F. Saftlas, University of Iowa (Audrey Saftlas 2012-09-27)“The book is very enjoyable to read, and the author has successfully diversified the cold scientific topics with anecdotal material and popular quotes.”—John P. A. Ioannidis, Stanford University (John P. A. Ioannidis 2012-09-27)"This book is a great read for almost anyone, from the interested lay reader to the experienced epidemiologist. We are quickly drawn into to the foundation of epidemiologic science and thinking by way of stories, cautionary tales and numerous examples, from both history and current events. Whether you are a practitioner, teacher, student, or you just happen to pick up the book, you will be certain to find Bracken’s stories compelling and even eye-opening."—Kay Dickersin, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (Kay Dickerson 2013-01-28)"Using a great range of examples, Michael Bracken provides a masterful guide to identifying the many false claims about what makes humans healthy or sick.  This book should be required reading for all in the media who try to explain health studies to the public."—Nigel Paneth, University Distinguished Professor, Michigan State University (Nigel Paneth 2013-02-21)"This book is a credit to epidemiology and an exciting and joyful read for lay and learned readers alike.”—Geir W. Jacobsen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (Geir W. Jacobsen 2013-02-22)“This extensively documented book deserves a wide readership.”—Choice (Choice)“If you would like a book to offer to a thoughtful and open-minded person unfamiliar with how epidemiologists and statisticians develop, process, and think about human health and information, this is a very good choice. Public understanding of science would be much advanced if this book were to be required reading in courses in science and journalism.”—Nigel Paneth, The Lancet (Nigel Paneth The Lancet)

About the Author Michael B. Bracken is the Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Epidemiology at Yale University.

Where to Download Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease, by Michael B. Bracken

Most helpful customer reviews

3 of 4 people found the following review helpful. Everything you want (and need) to know about Epidemiology By J. Williamsen Hardly a week passes, it seems, without a news report touting the latest research linking some (food, vitamin, mineral, lifestyle factor) to your health (or its opposite). Typically, such reports take the form of "Consuming (Doing) `X' reduces (increases) risk of (cancer, heart disease, premature death) by "Y"%.Well, in the interest of seeing where I stand, health-wise, I've been keeping track of these reports (and those percentages) for some time. By simple addition, I figure I have about a 137% chance of dying before any age-and-gender peer who: last consumed saturated fat at his mother's breast, avoids red meat and grilled bratwurst like the plague, has never smoked, exercises 30 minutes each day, never met a veggie he didn't like, consumes whole grains at every meal, gets a solid eight hours of sleep each night, and has a single glass of (red) wine every so often.OK, just kidding. That's not the way it works. But those reports are scary or--worse--contradictory. Today's health fact is tomorrow's artifact. Who--and what--can you believe? After a while, it almost seems best to ignore any such reports as essentially useless, the results of what has come to be called "junk science" (by, for example, Steven Milloy, in his book, Junk Science Judo: Self-Defense Against Health Scares & Scams).Question: Who are the scientists, and science, behind this endless stream of ever-changing health news? Answer: Epidemiologists, and Epidemiology. Epidemiology is defined as `the branch of medicine that deals with the incidence, distribution, and possible control of diseases and other factors relating to health," according to my trusty Google search. So it makes sense that epidemiologists would be at the forefront of the research on what makes us sick and what makes us healthy.Despite those irritatingly contradictory news articles encouraging us to eat this or not eat that, do this or not do that, epidemiology has made major contributions to our welfare and our understanding of the causes of disease. Of course, that is clearly obvious when dealing with epidemics, particularly those caused by bacteria or viruses (think polio, cholera). But epidemiologists have studied other diseases as well--those caused by factors in our environment, such as toxins. Perhaps the most outstanding example in the twentieth century is the epidemiological research on smoking and lung cancer, research that conclusively established the causal relationship between the two.But life is complicated, modern life seemingly more so, and the hunt for the causes of (and possible cures for) what are called "diseases of civilization" (cardiovascular disease, cancers, type II diabetes) has been far from straightforward. Actually, it's been pretty messy, and sometimes this messiness appears in the guise of those very premature health directives mentioned above.Not all of this "junk" is the fault of the epidemiologists who conduct the research that makes the pages of your daily newspaper. Journalists looking for "an angle" bear some responsibility--stretching the findings in a research study from an association between variables or factors to a causal relationship between them. But, sadly, some epidemiologists themselves condone this practice, at least implicitly, by making health practice recommendations at the end of their research reportsOf course not all epidemiologists do this, and certainly not Michael Bracken, the author of Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease. In this 276 page book (plus another 24 pages of notes and references for the really interested), Dr. Bracken (a professor of epidemiology at Yale with four decades of experience as an epidemiologist) provides the reader with a selective history of epidemiological accomplishments and a thorough overview of how epidemiological research is (sometimes badly) conducted, and how it should be done.Know the difference between a case control observational study and a prospective one--and why one is more useful than the other? Why an RCT (randomized controlled trial) is the gold standard in epidemiology--but why it isn't always feasible? Why a large observational study of 300,000 persons (or more) often is unable to demonstrate clear causal relationships? The answers to these questions--and more--are detailed in Dr. Bracken's book.This book would not likely find its way into a list of books to take to the beach--unless you are an epidemiologist, perhaps. But it is written for you, that "educated layperson" who is frustrated by confusing and conflicting press reports on health and health practices.Dr. Bracken won't tell you what to believe, but he will provide you with the knowledge and understanding you need to make more sense of (and peace with) the health headline in tomorrow's paper.We could use more Dr. Brackens.

1 of 1 people found the following review helpful. Excellent book to reaffirm important concepts in Epidemiology By RAFAEL DIAZ As a cardiologist, the concepts written in Michael's Bracken book are essential for the correct interpretation of the enormous amount of information we face nowadays. Written in a simple and friendly language, it is a very useful tool for our daily work. Thanks, I enjoyed it very much!

2 of 4 people found the following review helpful. this book is a good introduction to how scientists study risk-modifying factors for disease ... By William B. Grant Overall, this book is a good introduction to how scientists study risk-modifying factors for disease and how to evaluate findings in the journal literature. A. Bradford Hill's criteria for causality in a biological system is an approach I am particularly fond of, and it is well treated.The main problem I have with this book is that for several controversial topics definitive statements are made that do not stand up to close scrutiny. One would hope that in a book describing how to evaluate scientific evidence, correct conclusions would be reached. The statements that appear to be incorrect are discussed here.p. 3.: "The Women's Health Initiative trials have also shown that calcium and vitamin D supplementation do not protect against fractures in older women"This trial was poorly designed and conducted. It used only 400 IU/d vitamin D. A meta-analysis of all such trials found that it took 800 IU/d vitamin D to reduce risk of fractures: Bischoff-Ferrari HA, Willett WC, Orav EJ, Lips P, Meunier PJ, Lyons RA, Flicker L, Wark J, Jackson RD, Cauley JA, Meyer HE, Pfeifer M, Sanders KM, Stähelin HB, Theiler R, Dawson-Hughes B. A pooled analysis of vitamin D dose requirements for fracture prevention. N Engl J Med. 2012 Jul 5;367(1):40-9.p. 3: "low-fat diets do not lower risk of invasive breast cancer, colorectal cancer, or heart disease."Ecological and observational studies show that dietary fat is a risk factor for breast and colorectal cancer. The problem with many observational studies was that they did not consider diet early in life. [Armstrong, 1975; Cho, 2006]. A review found substantial risk of colorectal cancer from eating red meat [Kim, 2013]. By reducing saturated fat consumption in Finland, heart disease rates declined considerably [Puska, 2009].Armstrong B, Doll R. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer. 1975 Apr 15;15(4):617-31.Cho E, Chen WY, Hunter DJ, Stampfer MJ, Colditz GA, Hankinson SE, Willett WC. Red meat intake and risk of breast cancer among premenopausal women. Arch Intern Med. 2006 Nov 13;166(20):2253-9.Kim E, Coelho D, Blachier F. Review of the association between meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. Nutr Res. 2013 Dec;33(12):983-94. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24267037Puska P. Fat and heart disease: yes we can make a change--the case of North Karelia (Finland). Ann Nutr Metab. 2009;54 Suppl 1:33-8.p. 154: "Alzheimer's disease, autism, cancer, ... all have a strong genetic component to their cause."This statement is partly correct. While genes for risk of Alzheimer's disease and some cancers have been identified, the genetic risk for autism is mostly related to "de novo" genetic mutations not related to parental genetic makeup. For all three diseases, environmental factors are much more important than genetic components: autism - UVB and vitamin D reduce risk [Grant, 2013]; for Alzheimer's disease, diet is very important as seen in the trends of Alzheimer's disease in Japan [Grant, 2014]. For cancer, diet and smoking are also very important factors [Armstrong, 1975; Grant, 2014].Armstrong B, Doll R. Environmental factors and cancer incidence and mortality in different countries, with special reference to dietary practices. Int J Cancer. 1975 Apr 15;15(4):617-31.Grant WB. A multicountry ecological study of cancer incidence rates in 2008 with respect to various risk-modifying factors, Nutrients. 2014;6(1):163-189. http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/6/1/163Grant WB, Cannell JJ. Autism prevalence in the United States with respect to solar ultraviolet-B doses: An ecological study. Dermatoendocrinol. 2013;5(1): 159-64. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/pmid/24494049/Grant WB. Trends in diet and Alzheimer’s disease during the nutrition transition in Japan and developing countries. J Alz Dis, 2014 Jan 1;38(3):611-20. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24037034p. 193: "When Laetrile was pub into clinical trials at Sloan Kettering Memorial Hospital in New York, it was found unequivocally to have no benefit."This is not correct. From the paper reporting that study [Stock, 1978]:"In a series of 6 experiments with CD8F1 mice with spontaneous mammary adenocarcinomas Sugiura noted by macrovisual observation with some histology an overall average of 21% of mice with lung metastases when treated with 1,000--2,000 mg/kg/day of amygdalin compared with 90% of the control mice."As explained by Ralph Moss in Second Opinion, what happened was that the leaders of Sloan Kettering had two meetings with the FDA and NIH in 1975 and 1976 trying to convince them to do human tests on amygdalin, the generic version of Laetrile, but the government officials turned them down. They returned to New York to find a way to discredit the Sugiura experiments. They had his experiments repeated in a different manner and were not able to confirm his results. However, in the press conference, Dr. Sugiura stood behind his original experiments. It is noteworthy that a recent study in Germany found beneficial effects of amygdalin in treating cancer [Makarevic, 2014].Makarević J, Rutz J, Juengel E, Kaulfuss S, Reiter M, Tsaur I, Bartsch G, Haferkamp A, Blaheta RA. Amygdalin Blocks Bladder Cancer Cell Growth In Vitro by Diminishing Cyclin A and cdk2. PLoS One. 2014 Aug 19;9(8):e105590.Stock CC, Martin DS, Sugiura K, Fugmann RA, Mountain IM, Stockert E, Schmid FA, Tarnowski GS. Antitumor tests of amygdalin in spontaneous animal tumor systems. J Surg Oncol. 1978;10(2):89-123. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/347176pp. 196-197: The link between vaccinations and autism was summarily dismissed. However, recent papers have strengthened the link between vaccinations and autism. In one paper it was shown that data were manipulated by CDC scientists in order not to find a link between vaccinations and autism [Hooker, 2014]. One of the authors of the 2004 CDC study [DeStefano, 2004], William Thompson, admitted this action to Dr. Hooker. Another recent paper also showed why vaccinations could be linked to risk of autism [Deisher, 2014].Deisher TA, Doadn NV, Omaiye A, Koyama K, Bwabye S. Impact of environmental factors on the prevalence of autistic disorder after 1979. J Pub Health Epi. 2014;6:271-84.DeStefano F, Bhasin TK, Thompson WW, Yeargin-Allsopp M, Boyle C. Age at first measles-mumps-rubella vaccination in children with autism and school-matched control subjects: a population-based study in metropolitan atlanta. Pediatrics. 2004 Feb;113(2):259-66. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14754936Hooker BS. Measles-mumps-rubella vaccination timing and autism among young african american boys: a reanalysis of CDC data. Transl Neurodegener. 2014 Aug 8;3:16. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25114790p. 255: "the final conclusions about whether these are causal associations, at the time of this writing, remains undetermined""(red meat) and colorectal cancer""The incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) is rapidly increasing in developing countries, especially among populations that are adopting Western-style diets. Several, but not all, epidemiological and experimental studies suggest that a high intake of meat, especially red and processed meat, is associated with increased CRC risk."Kim E, Coelho D, Blachier F. Review of the association between meat consumption and risk of colorectal cancer. Nutr Res. 2013 Dec;33(12):983-94.p. 255: "Vitamin and calcium supplements and breast cancer survival or recurrence"The Women's Health Initiative study found that women not taking vitamin D or calcium prior to enrolling in the study "CaD significantly decreased the risk of total, breast, and invasive breast cancers by 14-20% and nonsignificantly reduced the risk of colorectal cancer by 17%." [Bolland, 2011]. Higher vitamin D concentrations were found with increased survival in a nine-year observational study in Norway [Tretli, 2012]. Vitamin D satisfies Hill's criteria for causality in a biological system [Mohr, 2012].Bolland MJ, Grey A, Gamble GD, Reid IR. Calcium and vitamin D supplements and health outcomes: a reanalysis of the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) limited-access data set. Am J Clin Nutr. 2011 Oct;94(4):1144-9.Mohr SB, Gorham ED, Alcaraz JE, Kane CI, Macera CA, Parsons JE, Wingard DL, Garland CF. Does the evidence for an inverse relationship between serum vitamin D status and breast cancer risk satisfy the Hill criteria? Dermatoendocrin. 2012;4(2):152-7.Tretli S, Schwartz GG, Torjesen PA, Robsahm TE. Serum levels of 25-hydroxyvitamin D and survival in Norwegian patients with cancer of breast, colon, lung, and lymphoma: a population-based study. Cancer Causes Control. 2012;23(2):363-70.Abstracts of these papers can be found at pubmed.gov or scholar.google.com.

See all 3 customer reviews... Risk, Chance, and Causation: Investigating the Origins and Treatment of Disease, by Michael B. Bracken