"dr_jeff" wrote in message ...
On 10/19/10 8:41 PM, jigo wrote:
dr_jeff wrote:
On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/


[2010 Nov] Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science He's what's known as a
meta-researcher, and he's become one of the world's foremost experts
on the
credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and
again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical
researchers
conclude in published studies-conclusions that doctors keep in mind when
they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they
advise
us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery
for
heart disease or back pain-is misleading, exaggerated, and often
flat-out
wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical
information that doctors rely on is flawed......

That's the cool thing about science: It's self correcting. I wonder
how he comes up with 90% figure.


Eventually self-correcting; that doesn't help those patients who got
lobotomized in the 20th century, for example.
...

All we can do is the best we can. And science is the best way to gain knowledge about health and the body.

What the article doesn't mention is that science is self-correcting.
It found out that the articles were wrong. What about con-med
(conjecture based-medicine or alternative medicine)? It is not
self-correcting, except for what brings in more income.

Again, *eventually* self-correcting. That may take many years.

Give us a better alternative.

Depends on whether you're talking about medical intervention for emergencies or long-term treatment of chronic disease.
Conventional medicine is good for the former but alternative good for the latter.


--
Carole
www.conspiracee.com
"When you have ruled out the impossible, then whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth." -writer Arthur Conan-Doyle