View Single Post
  #8  
Old October 20th 10, 06:21 AM posted to misc.health.alternative,misc.kids.health,sci.med
jigo
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default Lies, Damned Lies, and Medical Science

dr_jeff wrote:
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.



I don't think there is a better alternative. That doesn't mean we
should ignore the abuses I pointed out


On 10/19/10 5:08 AM, john wrote:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/...-science/8269/

...

he worries that the field of
medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with
conflicts of
interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change-or even to
publicly admitting that there's a problem.


Conflict of interest is the main problem, especially in semi-scientific
fields like psychiatry. If their treatments aren't working, why go to a
psych ward? But it's in the self-interest of the "screener" or
psychiatrist to have the person committed.

I'd choose psychiatry over something like Scientology if a family member
were sick, but to be candid, the results aren't much different.

...