BMJ op-ed: "Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia"
kirschsubstack.com
BMJ op-ed: "Evidence based medicine has been corrupted by corporate interests, failed regulation, and commercialisation of academia"
Couldn't have said it any better myself. Here's what one of the commenter's said: "We may be looking at a systemic failure of unknown proportions." You got that right!
The illusion of evidence based medicine, an op-ed published in the BMJ on March 16, 2022, points out that the system is now corrupt and needs major surgery to fix it.
I couldn’t agree more.
What is stunning is the relative silence from the medical community in supporting the suggested reforms. Just 5 comments on the op-ed after 9 days. All supportive of the op-ed. Not a single comment on the op-ed from anyone in the US.
Wow.
The BMJ does censor comments. But I don’t.
Have a look at the comments below, especially the comment from Mathew Crawford.
Steve, I just read that MIT/Rockefeller-supported hit piece. That was disgraceful what that Cat did. I also learned about the meta-analysis versus randomized, double-blind control issue.
In one of my comments, I indicated that I was not an expert in meta-analyses and that I was not enamored with the procedure. I get it now. I think that may explain why someone may have thought that I was attacking, countering, criticizing or attempting to undermine your efforts. I was not.
If that is what someone thought, I want to assure them--and you--that my comment should not be interpreted as an attempt to discredit the utilization of meta-analyses. Like all statistical interpretation, the transition back and forth between the numerically stated and verbally stated presentations, there is always imperfection. Meta-analysis certainly has value.
Furthermore, the pharmaceutical companies, the government and the universities have shown that one can certainly ruin stand-alone, randomized, double-blind control trials.
In conclusion, if someone knew nothing of the matter involved, the journalistic tactics that the author used caused me to judge the message of his article as unreliable. That the woman from a university found you difficult to talk to suggests to me that maybe she could not hold her own in the discussion. I have been the victim of this. When many people are being evasive in a conversation, and an another tries to achieve objective commonality regarding an important point, the latter is accused of being argumentative, obsessive, etc.
This all tends to reaffirm in my mind that there is something like the concept of impedance matching at work when it comes to intelligence and conversation. Just as in the transfer of electrical power between devices where the impedance of the two devices needs be matched in order to maximize that transfer---so too with semantic transfer. It requires a matching of intelligences between two parties.
Steve - 1; MIT - 0.
I got a 520 error timeout when trying to comment. Wouldn't be surprised if comments are being DDOS'd. I noticed Tucker Carlson's video recently where he talked about the biolab was being DDOS'd .