Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is the practice of treating individual patients
based on the outcomes of huge medical trials. It is, currently the
self-proclaimed gold standard for medical decision-making, and yet it is
increasingly unpopular with clinicians. Their reservations reflect an
intuitive understanding that something is wrong with its methodology. They are
right to think this, for EBM breaks the laws of so many disciplines
that it should not even be considered scientific. Indeed, from the viewpoint
of a rational patient, the whole edifice is crumbling.

The assumption that EBM is good science is unsound from the start. Decision
science and cybernetics (the science of communication and control) highlight
the disturbing consequences. EBM fosters marginally effective
treatments, based on population averages rather than individual need
Its mega-trials are incapable of finding the causes of disease, even for the
most diligent medical researchers, yet they swallow up research funds. Worse,
EBM cannot avoid exposing patients to health risks. It is time for medical
practitioners to discard EBM’s tarnished gold standard, reclaim their clinical
autonomy, and provide individualized treatments to patients.

The key element in a truly scientific medicine would be a rational patient.
This means that those who set a course of treatment would base their
decision-making on the expected risks and benefits of treatment to the
individual concerned. If you are sick, you want a treatment that will work for
you, personally. Given the relevant information, a rational patient will
choose the treatment the will be most beneficial. Of course, the patient is
not in isolation but works with a competent physician, who is there to help
the patient. The rational decision making unit then becomes the doctor-patient

The idea of a rational doctor-patient collaboration is powerful. Its main
consideration is the benefit of the individual patient. However, EBM
statistics are not good at helping individual patients-rather, they relate to
groups and populations.

The Practice of Medicine

Nobody likes statistics. OK, that might be putting it a bit strongly but, with
obvious exceptions (statisticians and mathematical types), many people do not
feel comfortable with statistical data. So, if you feel inclined to skip this
article in favor of something more agreeable-please wait a minute. For
although we are going to talk about statistics, our ultimate aim is to make
medicine simpler to understand and more helpful to each individual patient.

The current approach to medicine is “evidence-based.” This sounds
obvious but, in practice, it means relying on a few large-scale studies and
statistical techniques to choose the treatment for each patient. Practitioners
of EBM incorrectly call this process using the “best evidence.” In
order to restore the authority for decision-making to individual doctors and
patients, we need to challenge this orthodoxy, which is no easy task. Remember
Linus Pauling: despite being a scientific genius, he was condemned just for
suggesting that vitamin C could be a valuable therapeutic agent.

Historically, physicians, surgeons and scientists with the courage to go
against prevailing ideas have produced medical breakthroughs. Examples include
William Harvey’s theory of blood circulation (1628), which paved the way for
modern techniques such as cardiopulmonary bypass machines; James Lind’s
discovery that limes prevent scurvy (1747); John Snow’s work on transmission
of cholera (1849); and Alexander Fleming’s discovery of penicillin (1928). Not
one of these innovators used EBM. Rather, they followed the scientific method,
using small, repeatable experiments to test their ideas. Sadly, practitioners
of modern EBM have abandoned the traditional experimental method, in favor of
large group statistics.

What Use are Population Statistics?

Over the last twenty years, medical researchers have conducted ever larger
trials. It is common to find experiments with thousands of subjects, spread
over multiple research centers. The investigators presumably believe their
trials are effective in furthering medical research. Unfortunately, despite
the cost and effort that go into them, they do not help patients. According to
fundamental principles from decision science and cybernetics, large-scale
clinical trials can hardly fail to be wasteful, to delay medical progress, and
to be inapplicable to individual patients.

Much medical research relies on early twentieth century statistical methods,
developed before the advent of computers. In such studies, statistics are used
to determine the probability that two groups of patients differ from each
other. If a treatment group has taken a drug and a control group has not,
researchers typically ask whether any benefit was caused by the drug or
occurred by chance. The way they answer this question is to calculate the
“statistical significance.” This process results in a p-value: the
lower the p-value, the less likely the result was due to chance. Thus, a
p-value of 0.05 means a chance result might occur about one time in 20.
Sometimes a value of less than one-in-one-hundred (p < 0.01), or even less
than one-in-a-thousand (p < 0.001) is reported. These two p-values are
referred to as “highly significant” or “very highly
significant” respectively.

Significant Does Not Mean Important

We need to make something clear: in the context of statistics, the term
significant does not mean the same as in everyday language. Some people assume
that “significant” results must be “important” or
“relevant.” This is wrong: the level of significance reflects only
the degree to which the groups are considered to be separate. Crucially, the
significance level depends not only on the difference between the studied
groups, but also on their size. So, as we increase the size of the groups, the
results become more significant-even though the effect may be tiny and

Consider two populations of people, with very slightly different average blood
pressures. If we take 10 people from each, we will find no significant
difference between the two groups because a small group varies by chance. If
we take a hundred people from each population, we get a low level of
significance (p < 0.05), but if we take a thousand, we now find a very
highly significant result. Crucially, the magnitude of the small difference in
blood pressure remains the same in each case. In this case a difference can be
highly significant (statistically), yet in practical terms it is extremely
small and thus effectively insignificant. In a large trial, highly significant
effects are often clinically irrelevant. More importantly and contrary to
popular belief, the results from large studies are less important for a
rational patient than those from smaller ones.

Large trials are powerful methods for detecting small differences.
Furthermore, once researchers have conducted a pilot study, they can perform a
power calculation, to make sure they include enough subjects to get a high
level of significance. Thus, over the last few decades, researchers have
studied ever bigger groups, resulting in studies a hundred times larger than
those of only a few decades ago. This implies that the effects they are
seeking are minute, as larger effects (capable of offering real benefits to
actual patients) could more easily be found with the smaller, old-style

Now, tiny differences – even if they are “very highly significant” –
are nothing to boast about, so EBM researchers need to make their findings
sound more impressive. They do this by using relative rather than absolute
values. Suppose a drug halves your risk of developing cancer (a relative
value). Although this sounds great, the reported 50% reduction may lessen your
risk by just one in ten thousand: from two in ten thousand (2/10,000) to one
in ten thousand (1/10,000) (absolute values). Such a small benefit is
typically irrelevant, but when expressed as a relative value, it sounds
important. (By analogy, buying two lottery tickets doubles your chance of
winning compared to buying one; but either way, your chances are miniscule.)

The Ecological Fallacy

There is a further problem with the dangerous assertion implicit in EBM that
large-scale studies are the best evidence for decisions concerning individual
patients. This claim is an example of the ecological fallacy, which wrongly
uses group statistics to make predictions about individuals. There is no way
round this; even in the ideal practice of medicine, EBM should not be applied
to individual patients. In other words, EBM is of little direct clinical use.
Moreover, as a rule, the larger the group studied, the less useful will be the
results. A rational patient would ignore the results of most EBM trials
because they aren’t applicable.

To explain this, suppose we measured the foot size of every person in New York
and calculated the mean value (total foot size/number of people). Using this
information, the government proposes to give everyone a pair of average-sized
shoes. Clearly, this would be unwise-the shoes would be either too big or too
small for most people. Individual responses to medical treatments vary by at
least as much as their shoe sizes, yet despite this, EBM relies upon
aggregated data. This is technically wrong; group statistics cannot predict an
individual’s response to treatment.

EBM Selects Evidence

Another problem with EBM’s approach of trying to use only the
“best evidence” is that it cuts down the amount of information
available to doctors and patients making important treatment decisions.

The evidence allowed in EBM consists of selected large-scale trials and
meta-analyses that attempt to make a conclusion more significant by
aggregating results from wildly different groups. This constitutes a tiny
percentage of the total evidence. Meta-analysis rejects the vast majority of
data available, because it does not meet the strict criteria for EBM. This
conflicts with yet another scientific principle, that of not selecting your
data. Rather humorously in this context, science students who select the best
data, to draw a graph of their results, for example, will be penalized and
told not to do it again.

One of the first lessons for science students is to
not select the best evidence; all data must be considered. The lines
indicate how using just the “best” data gives a better, though
misleading, fit.

More EBM Problems

The problems with EBM continue. It breaks other fundamental laws, this time
from the field of cybernetics, which is the study of systems control and
communication. The human body is a biological system and, when something goes
wrong, a medical practitioner attempts to control it. To take an example, if a
person has a high temperature, the doctor could suggest a cold compress; this
might work if the person was hot through over-exertion or too many clothes.
Alternatively, the doctor may recommend an antipyretic, such as aspirin.
However, if the patient has an infection and a raging fever, physical cooling
or symptomatic treatment might not work, as it would not quell the infection.

In the above case, a doctor who overlooked the possibility of infection has
not applied the appropriate information to treat the condition. This
illustrates a cybernetic concept known as requisite variety, first proposed by
an English psychiatrist, Dr. W. Ross Ashby. In modern language, Ashby’s law of
requisite variety means that the solution to a problem (such as a medical
diagnosis) has to contain the same amount of relevant information (variety) as
the problem itself. Thus, the solution to a complex problem will require more
information than the solution to a straightforward problem. Ashby’s idea was
so powerful that it became known as the first law of cybernetics. Ashby used
the word variety to refer to information or, as an EBM practitioner might say,

As we have mentioned, EBM restricts variety to what it considers the
“best evidence.” However, if doctors were to apply the same
statistically-based treatment to all patients with a particular condition,
they would break the laws of both cybernetics and statistics. Consequently, in
many cases, the treatment would be expected to fail, as the doctors would not
have enough information to make an accurate prediction. Population statistics
do not capture the information needed to provide a well-fitting pair of shoes,
let alone to treat a complex and particular patient. As the ancient
philosopher Epicurus explained, you need to consider all the data.

Restricting our information to the “best evidence” would be a
mistake, but it is equally wrong to go to the other extreme and throw all the
information we have at a problem. Just as Goldilocks in the fairy-tale wanted
her porridge “neither too hot, nor too cold, but just right” doctors
must select just the right information to diagnose and treat an illness. The
problem of too much information is described by the quaintly-named curse of
dimensionality, discussed further below.

A doctor who arrives at a correct diagnosis and treatment in an efficient
manner is called, in cybernetic terms, a good regulator. According to Roger
Conant and Ross Ashby, every good regulator of a system must be a model of
that system. Good regulators achieve their goal in the simplest way possible.
In order to achieve this, the diagnostic processes must model the systems of
the body, which is why doctors undergo years of training in all aspects of
medical science. In addition, each patient must be treated as an individual.
EBM’s group statistics are irrelevant, since large-scale clinical trials do
not model an individual patient and his or her condition, they model a
population-albeit somewhat crudely. They are thus not good regulators. Once
again, a rational patient would reject EBM as a poor method for finding an
effective treatment for an illness.

Real Science Means Verification

As we have implied, science is a process of induction and uses experiments to
test ideas. From a scientific perspective, therefore, we trust but verify the
findings of other researchers. The gold standard in science is called
Solomonoff Induction, named after Ray Solomonoff, a cybernetic researcher. The
power of a scientific result is that you can easily repeat the experiment and
check it. If it can’t be repeated, for whatever reason (because it is
untestable, too difficult, or wrong), a scientific result is weak and
unreliable. Unfortunately, EBM’s emphasis on large studies makes replication
difficult, expensive, and time consuming. We should be suspicious of
large studies, because they are all but impossible to repeat and are therefore
EBM asks us to trust its results but, to all intents and
purposes, it precludes replication. After all, how many doctors have $40
million dollars and 5 years available to repeat a large clinical trial? Thus,
EBM avoids refutation, which is a critical part of the scientific method.

In their models and explanations, scientists aim for simplicity. By contrast,
EBM generates large numbers of risk factors and multivariate explanations,
which makes choosing treatments difficult. For example, if doctors believe a
disease is caused by salt, cholesterol, junk food, lack of exercise, genetic
factors, and so on, the treatment plan will be complex. This multifactorial
approach is also invalid, as it leads to the curse of dimensionality.
Surprisingly, the more risk factors you use, the less chance you have of
getting a solution. This finding comes directly from the field of pattern
recognition, where overly complex solutions are consistently found to fail.
Too many risk factors mean that noise and error in the model will overwhelm
the genuine information, leading to false predictions or diagnoses. Once
again, a rational patient would reject EBM, because it is inherently
unscientific and impractical.

Medicine for People, Not Statisticians

Diagnosing medical conditions is challenging, because we are each
biochemically individual. As explained by an originator of this concept,
nutritional pioneer Dr. Roger Williams, “Nutrition is for real people.
Statistical humans are of little interest.” Doctors must encompass enough
knowledge and therapeutic variety to match the biological diversity within
their population of patients. The process of classifying a particular person’s
symptoms requires a different kind of statistics (Bayesian), as well as
pattern recognition. These have the ability to deal with individual

The basic approach of medicine must be to treat patients as unique
individuals, with distinct problems.
This extends to biochemistry and
genetics. An effective and scientific form of medicine would apply pattern
recognition, rather than regular statistics. It would thus meet the
requirements of being a good regulator; in other words, it would be an
effective approach to the prevention and treatment of disease. It would also
avoid traps, such as the ecological fallacy.

Personalized, ecological, and nutritional (orthomolecular) medicines are
converging on a truly scientific approach. We are entering a new understanding
of medical science, according to which the holistic approach is directly
supported by systems science. Orthomolecular medicine, far from being
marginalized as “alternative,” may soon become recognized as the
ultimate rational medical methodology. That is more than can be said for EBM.

About the Authors:

Steve Hickey holds a PhD in Medical Biophysics from the University of
Manchester, England. His PhD was on the development, aging, function and
failure of the intervertebral disk. He carried out research in the fields of
medical imaging and biophysics, and his later research included pattern
recognition, artificial intelligence, computer science, and decision science.
He has published hundreds of scientific articles in a variety of disciplines.
Dr. Hickey is co-author, with Hilary Roberts, of Ascorbate: The Science of
Vitamin C; Cancer: Nutrition and Survival; Ridiculous Dietary Allowance; The
Cancer Breakthrough, and The Vitamin Cure for Heart Disease.

Hilary Roberts has her PhD in the effects of early-life undernutrition from
the Department of Child Health at the University of Manchester, England. She
also holds degrees in computer science, physiology and psychology. Following
her PhD, she carried out research into the development of expert systems at
Manchester Business School, England.

For further reading:

Hickey S and Roberts H. Tarnished Gold: The Sickness of Evidence Based
Medicine. CreateSpace,
2011. ISBN-10: 1466397292; ISBN-13: 978-1466397293

advertising biases journals against vitamin supplements
. Orthomolecular
Medicine News Service
, February 5, 2009.

Free, peer-reviewed nutritional medicine information online: No
evidence, eh?
Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, October 3,

Nutritional Medicine is Orthomolecular Medicine

Orthomolecular medicine uses safe, effective nutritional therapy to fight
illness. For more information: http://www.orthomolecular.org

Reprinted courtesy of Orthomolecular
Medicine News Service