Science-based medicine: Reality check

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4212

"High reprint orders in medical journals and pharmaceutical industry funding: case-control study."

Comment from former BMJ editor:
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.e4212/rr/592345

Medical journals make lots of profit from pharma companies ordering reprints of published articles. Perhaps there's nothing wrong with that, or perhaps these journals are a little more motivated to publish studies they feel will generate reprint orders and $$$.

And how about the refusal of American publishers to release any data on reprint orders and associated revenues. Hmmm....

"a single Lancet paper with a similar sale of 835,100 reprints, amounted to a journal income of around US $2.4 million."
Members don't see this ad.
 
facetguy said:
I do have to say I disagree with your pejorative tone, particularly your use of "sCAMmers".
Click to expand...

I do also. Instead or just making my own opinion, I went and studied some alternative approaches.
 
DC's are SCAMmers. They use false biomechanics, lie about the effects of their treatments and use cult indoctrination tactics to sell it to students in schools and patients in practice. All chiropractic organizations support these practices as the legitimate scope of practice either directly or tacitly. This isn't a few but is systemic and they have a campaign of misinformation to hide the practices and try to pass themselves off as doing legitimate the equivalent (or better) to orthopedic PT. It is impossible to have any sense of legitimate ethics when you are selling a limited therapy at a disadvantage to other legitimate fields, that's why they have to puff it up and why increasing numbers of DC schools are closing because prospective students are becoming more aware of the scams and how poor the future prospects are for graduating chiropractors with a stagnant utilization rate of 7%. 25-50% of DCs leave the field after a few years of practice and most probably haven't earned enough to pay their student loans off (which are hidden because the default rate only counts the first two years of repayment). Given these prospects if the true rate of student loan defaults was counted (including write offs due to income contingent loan repayment) chiropractic schools wouldn't even qualify for federal student aid. Even so, several straight (anti-rehab) programs are closing due to large decreases in enrollment (about 30%). Cleveland College of Chiropractic in Los Angeles closed and Life West in California recently sent alumni a demand notice stating that if they didn't reach their fundraising goal they would close. Given this lack of ethics they shouldn't even have licenses because a licensing board of quacks will never protect the public adequately-they will always favor the quacks except in scandalous cases like molestation. State boards routinely defend DCs treating cancer (Hawaii) and give very light sentences for big offenses. I knew one DC (Life University alumnus Jason Corbett) who ripped off insurance companies for millions and only got a two year license suspection in MA. Chirobase has an article about it for anyone interested. If they can't get around it state boards will always sacrifice individual chiropractors to keep chiropractic institutions from looking bad. For example, around 2006 CA, MA, KY and NC refused to pre-emptively revoke licenses when evidence was presented that they were taught false diagnosis information at Life University-instead they hide the problems and scapegoat individual DCs when necessary.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
cdmguy said:
DC's are SCAMmers...
Click to expand...

Please keep your anti-chiro bias out of this thread. You've started at least a dozen anti-chiro threads on SDN, so go post in there.
 
An interesting take on the direction of research these days:
http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2012/07/03/losing-faith/

"Yet real science must be an arena where truth is the rule; or else the activity simply stops being science and becomes something else: Zombie science. Zombie science is a science that is dead, but is artificially kept moving by a continual infusion of funding. From a distance Zombie science look like the real thing, the surface features of a science are in place – white coats, laboratories, computer programming, PhDs, papers, conference, prizes, etc. But the Zombie is not interested in the pursuit of truth – its citations are externally-controlled and directed at non-scientific goals, and inside the Zombie everything is rotten….."

Is he right, at least to some extent? I think he might be.
 
Sorry but I don't take orders from quacks.

Chiropractic authors have stated that fraud, abuse and quackery are more prevalent in chiropractic than in other health care professions.[38] Unsubstantiated claims about the efficacy of chiropractic have continued to be made by individual chiropractors and chiropractic associations. The core concept of traditional chiropractic, vertebral subluxation, is not based on sound science. The biomechanical listing systems taught in chiropractic college technique offerings have been criticized as inaccurate, inadequate and invalid.[194] A critical evaluation found that research has not demonstrated that spinal manipulation, the main treatment method employed by chiropractors, is effective for any medical condition, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.,[16] whereas, another review found manual therapies in general to be effective for back pain, neck pain, some forms of headaches and some extremity joint conditions.[22] Although rare,[1] spinal manipulation, particularly on the upper spine, can also result in complications that can lead to permanent disability or death; these can occur in adults[33] and children.[174] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#Controversy_and_criticism)
Click to expand...
 
Modern medicine has done little to nothing in regards to mortality. Social projects and a sharp drop in infant mortality has done much more. I find medicine overrated (and yes I dispense it for a living :laugh:). To be clear, I find alternative methods mildly ******ed as well.Try and take care of your body first and then try medicine.
 
The world is overpopulated, why do we need longer lifespans? Maybe you just need a good religion/counselor to assuage your fear of death.

But scientific research has done a lot to improve the quality of life and slow the aging process. Take Realage.com for example.
 
Last edited:
cdmguy said:
The world is overpopulated, why do we need longer lifespans? Maybe you just need a good religion/counselor to assuage your fear of death.

But scientific research has done a lot to improve the quality of life and slow the aging process. Take Realage.com for example.
Click to expand...

The world is not that overpopulated. Models for population have humans stabilizing at 10 billion.
And yes medicine has a tremendous impact on morbidity, not so much mortality on a population level.
 
>The world is not that overpopulated. Models for population have humans stabilizing at 10 billion.

Actually food shortages are predicted to cut the population down to 2 billion by 2030.

Richard C. Duncan claims the that the world population will decline to about 2 billion around 2050.[131] David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agriculture at Cornell University, estimates that the sustainable agricultural carrying capacity for the United States is about 200 million people; its population as of 2011 is over 310 million.[132] In 2009, the UK government's chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, warned that growing populations, falling energy reserves and food shortages would create a "perfect storm" by 2030.
Click to expand...

Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Overpopulation

Things are going to get really crazy at that time.
 
Last edited:
cdmguy said:
>The world is not that overpopulated. Models for population have humans stabilizing at 10 billion.

Actually food shortages are predicted to cut the population down to 2 billion by 2030.



Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population#Overpopulation

Things are going to get really crazy at that time.
Click to expand...


https://globalconsensus.wordpress.com/2009/08/29/world-population-is-stabilizing/

I love wikipedia and all but a lot of places I have read that the population will stabilize around 10 bil or so. I really hope that is the case.
 
Her,
Good to see you provided a reference. One problem I see is the Judeo-Christian teaching to have large families. This is one reason we see many latino families having large numbers of kids despite being relatively poor.
 
cdmguy said:
Her,
Good to see you provided a reference. One problem I see is the Judeo-Christian teaching to have large families. This is one reason we see many latino families having large numbers of kids despite being relatively poor.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that women literacy and population are inversely related. Most of the population growth is not seen in well to do industrial countries but rather in relatively poor countries where mortality rate amongst children is high enough to warrant having back ups. There have been some in-roads made with educational programs, use of condoms etc. which give me hope for the future :)
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I'm less optimistic. I don't think that the population will stabilize enough to compensate within the short time we have left to right the environment (30 year tipping point for food shortages) and that people will accept voluntary limitations (condoms) without government mandates. Perhaps food shortages would be a good thing because if the earth's population was cut down to 2 billion that might be enough to stop global warming. Another concern I have is that human progress has essentially negated evolutionary pressure. Prior to modern times, humans that were weak died out to leave the fitter ones to have better offspring that were better suited to the environment. In present times, government support and universal health care protect the defectives and allow them to spread their dysfunctional genes to contaminate the gene pool. I can see eugenics resurfacing with gene tests to sterilize undesireable profiles (homozygous alleles). Government should stop giving parents tax breaks that encourage breeding beyond one child unless children are found to have good traits and children with undesireable traits should be aborted in utero before they come to term. This would be a reproductive planning system that makes sense for the environment and our species. If humans were fitter healthcare costs would also reduce.
 
cdmguy said:
I'm less optimistic. I don't think that the population will stabilize enough to compensate within the short time we have left to right the environment (30 year tipping point for food shortages) and that people will accept voluntary limitations (condoms) without government mandates. Perhaps food shortages would be a good thing because if the earth's population was cut down to 2 billion that might be enough to stop global warming. Another concern I have is that human progress has essentially negated evolutionary pressure. Prior to modern times, humans that were weak died out to leave the fitter ones to have better offspring that were better suited to the environment. In present times, government support and universal health care protect the defectives and allow them to spread their dysfunctional genes to contaminate the gene pool. I can see eugenics resurfacing with gene tests to sterilize undesireable profiles (homozygous alleles). Government should stop giving parents tax breaks that encourage breeding beyond one child unless children are found to have good traits and children with undesireable traits should be aborted in utero before they come to term. This would be a reproductive planning system that makes sense for the environment and our species. If humans were fitter healthcare costs would also reduce.
Click to expand...

Advice: delete that post, especially the latter part about "good traits" and "undesirable traits" and government-forced abortions. That's a scary opinion.
 
Scary? 8 billion deaths due to starvation is no big deal but genetic planning bothers you? Dude you have some wacked out priorities.

Not that I care what you think but it's funny that a chiropractor, a class that makes its living on health misinformation, would cry out against free speech.

Bill of rights, first amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

The entire point of genetic counseling is to prevent disease by advising individuals when it is dangerous to reproduce. All I am saying is an extension of that discipline to improve and control the population. We do it with animals all the time. That's how dogs were made.

It works, look at China's crude one child policy, which is estimated to have reduced population growth in the country of 1.3 billion by as much as 300 million people (23%) over its first twenty years.

http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm

All countries should do this sort of planning.
 
Last edited:
All countries should have you deciding who gets aborted based on what you deem "undesirable traits"? You're scarier than I thought. Go read a history book.
 
Eugenics is a no-no because I do not wan't a single authority (government) deciding what are good traits and what are not.

The definition of desirable traits has changed over time. Physical strength and prowess were the favorites back in the prehistoric era, now people can overcome any physical defects and still be able to contribute to society (e.g. Stephen Hawking).
 
I disagree. It is a red herring to say that individual traits alone have to solely be responsible for a positive or negative decision. Rather, good traits could compensate for bad ones, that would let a Hawking be allowed to pass while others without good traits would fail. Moreover, there's no shortage of physicists so why should society have to suffer perpetuating MS just to allow the slim chance of an unneeded able physicist (who probably won't work as long as other physicists without MS)? Anyway, these decisions are luxuries. Society is going to have to triage these decisions and sacrifice the interests of the weaker members for the survival and best interests of the whole. That's the way it was before modern times and that's what's best for the health of our species. That's the point of evolution. If you don't have the lions the antelopes get dumb, sick, slow and lazy. Food shortages are no joke and will select solely for the richest members of society so ranking by physical defects is much fairer and preferable.
 
Last edited:
cdmguy said:
I disagree. It is a red herring to say that individual traits alone have to solely be responsible for a positive or negative decision. Rather, good traits could compensate for bad ones, that would let a Hawking be allowed to pass while others without good traits would fail. Moreover, there's no shortage of physicists so why should society have to suffer perpetuating MS just to allow the slim chance of an unneeded able physicist (who probably won't work as long as other physicists without MS)? Anyway, these decisions are luxuries. Society is going to have to triage these decisions and sacrifice the interests of the weaker members for the survival and best interests of the whole. That's the way it was before modern times and that's what's best for the health of our species. That's the point of evolution. If you don't have the lions the antelopes get dumb, sick, slow and lazy. Food shortages are no joke and will select solely for the richest members of society so ranking by physical defects is much fairer and preferable.
Click to expand...

I've gotten used to your drivel over the years around here. But are you off your meds or something? Listen to what you are saying. "Why should society have to suffer perpetuating MS just to allow the slim chance of an unneeded able physicist"? First of all, Hawking has ALS, not MS. But more importantly, are you seriously advocating killing someone with MS or any other disease so that society doesn't have to suffer??? If I didn't know better, I'd be forced to conclude you are joking or that someone hacked your account and is f-ing with you.

Just so we're clear, is it really your position that we should kill those with some disability?
 
Sterilization isn't killing. Neither is aborting a fetus. I don't think that people should be murdered just because they have terrible genes but I am in favor of limiting medical treatment to palliation for fatal conditions, banning expensive end of life care and giving access to assisted suicide. These individuals certainly shouldn't be permitted to reproduce. Unfortunately current tax and welfare policy based on outdated christian moral codes give the reverse incentive. If churches want to pay for this insanity (aside from the sterilization and abortion mandates) then that's their prerogative but they shouldn't be allowed to give a universal mandate for everyone.

The USA is far too permissive in allowing religion to dictate policy.
 
Last edited:
cdmguy said:
Sterilization isn't killing. Neither is aborting a fetus. I don't think that people should be murdered just because they have terrible genes but I am in favor of limiting medical treatment to palliation for fatal conditions, banning expensive end of life care and giving access to assisted suicide. These individuals certainly shouldn't be permitted to reproduce. Unfortunately current tax and welfare policy based on outdated christian moral codes give the reverse incentive. If churches want to pay for this insanity (aside from the sterilization and abortion mandates) then that's their prerogative but they shouldn't be allowed to give a universal mandate for everyone.

The USA is far too permissive in allowing religion to dictate policy.
Click to expand...

Who are "these individuals" exactly? People you don't like? People you've decided are unfit? Your disabled friend, the cook?

I would think that you, with your self-described disability and reliance on the rest of society, might have a different opinion on all this. Perhaps your health problems have had some deleterious epigenetic impact on you, so maybe you shouldn't be allowed to reproduce, just to be on the safe side.

Dude, step back for a second, think about what you're saying, then please never leave your house again.
 
I don't think I should be allowed to reproduce without mandatory selective abortion for bad fetuses. I have several genetic heterozygous adverse traits (allergies, MTFHR deficiency, DHT excess, anxiety/depression) that I don't want to pass on. The best thing you can do for someone who has major genetic disease traits is to prevent them from living a life in misery and disadvantage through selective abortion. In my opinion, everyone in public housing should be screened for bad genes and if found to have subpar genes, accept some form of birth control as a condition of residence. If life has no meaning for people without having kids then they truly have unrewarding lives indeed.
 
Last edited:
cdmguy said:
I don't think I should be allowed to reproduce without mandatory selective abortion for bad fetuses. I have many genetic heterozygous adverse traits that I don't want to pass on. Further, I don't think the meaning of one's life should depend on having offspring.
Click to expand...

Perhaps we've arrived at the heart of the matter for you.
 
http://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.d3004.full?keytype=ref&ijkey=7jS079A2H5KIrBz

"Reality Check: It’s time to rebuild the evidence base"


"Just as the tobacco companies polluted the literature on smoking, and polluting industries try to distort the science of climate change, the pharmaceutical giants and the doctors on their payrolls are poisoning too much of the medical science with overly positive findings. The inevitable rebuilding of that evidence base may not only produce more trustworthy and less debased information but also offer societies the chance to take back the agenda in healthcare research and practice, which has been hijacked so effectively, and with such panache, by the drug industry."
 
at least if this were for CME they would have disclosed their conflicts of interest at the beginning.... I think what alternative has to offer is exactly what patients want, which is some kind of meaning to what the hell is wrong with them and what to do about it. Western medicine can and does do that, with things like germ theory, antibiotics, hygiene advances etc that are pretty much taken for granted. If you have something that western medicine has no name for or way to treat or whatever by all means pursue whatever answers outside of that. There are however some basic things western medicine can and does do that are immensely helpful for individuals and society and I think the article doesn't bring this up.

Has anyone ever had a severe stroke come on and someone yelled "quick call a naturopath!!"? I think not.. and as long as calling 911 gets you allopathic medicine, it will have the place in the sun in this society at the end of the day.

cdmguy- your ideology is very nazi war criminal....
 
Eugenics wasn't just practiced in germany by the Nazi's, the original idea came from the USA. Funny how we use it to breed healthier animals and nobody bats an eyelash but if you want to improve health in people by using evolution to weed out the less fit suddenly you're a Nazi.
 
Mattchiavelli said:
at least if this were for CME they would have disclosed their conflicts of interest at the beginning.... I think what alternative has to offer is exactly what patients want, which is some kind of meaning to what the hell is wrong with them and what to do about it. Western medicine can and does do that, with things like germ theory, antibiotics, hygiene advances etc that are pretty much taken for granted. If you have something that western medicine has no name for or way to treat or whatever by all means pursue whatever answers outside of that. There are however some basic things western medicine can and does do that are immensely helpful for individuals and society and I think the article doesn't bring this up.

Has anyone ever had a severe stroke come on and someone yelled "quick call a naturopath!!"? I think not.. and as long as calling 911 gets you allopathic medicine, it will have the place in the sun in this society at the end of the day.
Click to expand...

Speaking for myself, I am certainly not saying Western medicine lacks importance. In fact, it's obvious that Western medicine is hugely important. This thread, as it is intended anyway, isn't even to promote 'alternative' healthcare methods. The theme of this thread is just to add a dose of reality to where it is sometimes needed.

Mattchiavelli said:
cdmguy- your ideology is very nazi war criminal....
Click to expand...

...and I still can't believe cdm is willing to write this stuff openly on a forum. Imagine what's written in his Unibomberesque manifesto.
 
Are medical journals "information-laundering for Big Pharma"?

http://ethicalnag.org/2012/09/26/medical-journals-information-laundering-big-pharma/

From the blog article:

"What does this mean? It means that physicians read medical journals, treatment decisions are changed, care is affected, drugs are prescribed, medical practice altered – all based on Big Pharma-funded, insider-prepared journal articles that the journal editors themselves describe as “information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry“.
Then we walk out of our doctor’s office with a prescription for a drug or recommendation for a medical procedure that may or may not help/hurt us, based on treatment protocols written by doctors who are likely on the take from industry."

The point? Just because you read it in a medical journal doesn't mean it isn't biased and doesn't mean it isn't driven more by business interests than by evidence.
 
facetguy said:
Are medical journals "information-laundering for Big Pharma"?

http://ethicalnag.org/2012/09/26/medical-journals-information-laundering-big-pharma/

From the blog article:

"What does this mean? It means that physicians read medical journals, treatment decisions are changed, care is affected, drugs are prescribed, medical practice altered – all based on Big Pharma-funded, insider-prepared journal articles that the journal editors themselves describe as "information-laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry".
Then we walk out of our doctor's office with a prescription for a drug or recommendation for a medical procedure that may or may not help/hurt us, based on treatment protocols written by doctors who are likely on the take from industry."

The point? Just because you read it in a medical journal doesn't mean it isn't biased and doesn't mean it isn't driven more by business interests than by evidence.
Click to expand...

While I can appreciate healthy scepticism, I am wary of rejecting everything published in medical journals. I have had the opportunity to work on a couple of clinical trials and its alarming how much I can manipulate my paper. Manipulation of data, hiding information etc. Of course, I didn't do anything like that but it is so easy to get away with **** like that. I know someone who was in the FDA panel for Avandia recall. And they put in hundreds of hours to find how ****ty the trial (the post-approval one to show difference in AMI) published in NEJM was. The panel completely discarded the trial that took millions of dollars to complete. Not all NIH funded studies are bias free just as not all pharma sponsored studies are biased.
 
hereticmnk said:
While I can appreciate healthy scepticism, I am wary of rejecting everything published in medical journals. I have had the opportunity to work on a couple of clinical trials and its alarming how much I can manipulate my paper. Manipulation of data, hiding information etc. Of course, I didn't do anything like that but it is so easy to get away with **** like that. I know someone who was in the FDA panel for Avandia recall. And they put in hundreds of hours to find how ****ty the trial (the post-approval one to show difference in AMI) published in NEJM was. The panel completely discarded the trial that took millions of dollars to complete. Not all NIH funded studies are bias free just as not all pharma sponsored studies are biased.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone is saying that everything published in medical journals should be rejected. However, the shenanigans that goes on in research and guideline publication sure makes it difficult for the practicing healthcare professional to know what to trust and what to discard as bull****.

And let's not forget all the research that doesn't get published because it's not favorable to someone's bottom line. How is a physician to account for that data? He or she can't, of course, and that's a major problem.
 
facetguy said:
I don't think anyone is saying that everything published in medical journals should be rejected. However, the shenanigans that goes on in research and guideline publication sure makes it difficult for the practicing healthcare professional to know what to trust and what to discard as bull****.

And let's not forget all the research that doesn't get published because it's not favorable to someone's bottom line. How is a physician to account for that data? He or she can't, of course, and that's a major problem.
Click to expand...

It is sad how many people just read the abstract of journal articles without critically evaluating it.

Publication bias has been addressed quite well in recent years with the collaborative efforts of many journals. You cannot publish in most peer reviewed journals if you did not register your trial at clinicaltrials.gov which is brilliant.
 
hereticmnk said:
It is sad how many people just read the abstract of journal articles without critically evaluating it.

Publication bias has been addressed quite well in recent years with the collaborative efforts of many journals. You cannot publish in most peer reviewed journals if you did not register your trial at clinicaltrials.gov which is brilliant.
Click to expand...

Ben Goldacre has written about why even this isn't foolproof. I'll try to find the article.
 
facetguy said:
Ben Goldacre has written about why even this isn't foolproof. I'll try to find the article.
Click to expand...

Relevant video

One exaggeration though -No way the Lorcainide trial would have pushed clinicians to think of rate control vs. rhythm control. People would have just blamed the individual agent. I still have such a hard time believing that people don't follow rules set forth by the FDA where negative trials have to reported as well. Everyone I have ever worked with has been a huge stickler about these rules. I might be biased to academia, so not totally sure how they do things in pharma.
 
hereticmnk said:
Relevant video

One exaggeration though -No way the Lorcainide trial would have pushed clinicians to think of rate control vs. rhythm control. People would have just blamed the individual agent. I still have such a hard time believing that people don't follow rules set forth by the FDA where negative trials have to reported as well. Everyone I have ever worked with has been a huge stickler about these rules. I might be biased to academia, so not totally sure how they do things in pharma.
Click to expand...

...but we can probably guess!
 
Interesting presentation from a few days ago. Discusses mostly psychiatric meds but also applies more broadly. Points to flaws in research publication and concludes that 'evidence-based medicine' has failed us. About an hour but interesting.

[YOUTUBE]A3YB59EKMKw[/YOUTUBE]
 
hereticmnk said:
It is sad how many people just read the abstract of journal articles without critically evaluating it.

Publication bias has been addressed quite well in recent years with the collaborative efforts of many journals. You cannot publish in most peer reviewed journals if you did not register your trial at clinicaltrials.gov which is brilliant.
Click to expand...

Yeah, people putting all this time and money into work without anything to show for it if they don't publish their negative study is just foolish to me. My current role is a nonclinical, lab resident for 2 years. I am taking 2 years away from my clinical training to do this ****. I want to publish any and everything I can. I want to get a **** ton of articles out, be all prolific and such. Fellowships care more about gross numbers, not impact of studies.
 
On the objectivity of treatment guidelines:
http://www.jsonline.com/features/he...e-treatment-guidelines-ki7pjr6-184041791.html

"Doctors with financial ties to drug companies have heavily influenced treatment guidelines recommending the most lucrative drugs in American medicine, an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today has found."

"At the end of the day, the drug companies own medicine," said Eric Campbell, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who has researched conflicts of interest in treatment guidelines. "We've created a system that allows this."
 
Subscribed. Brb

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
facetguy said:
On the objectivity of treatment guidelines:
http://www.jsonline.com/features/he...e-treatment-guidelines-ki7pjr6-184041791.html

"Doctors with financial ties to drug companies have heavily influenced treatment guidelines recommending the most lucrative drugs in American medicine, an analysis by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today has found."

"At the end of the day, the drug companies own medicine," said Eric Campbell, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who has researched conflicts of interest in treatment guidelines. "We've created a system that allows this."
Click to expand...

I am actually not aware of any hospitals that don't have steep penalties for fraternizing too closely with drug reps. We can't even have pens with drug names on them. I didn't see the study they discuss (mobile version didn't have it maybe?) But it sounds either inflated or more relevant to the 1980s.

But what does this have to do with EBM? It is not enough to cite problems in something. You must provide an alternative or strive towards fixing such flaws. The combustion engine pollutes and is inefficient. Is this a valid argument for removing all cars and going back to horseback?

Forgive me if I misinterpreted the situation, but you appear to be knocking EBM as a backward way of defending chiropractic practices, or at the very least using flaws in it to ward off criticisms of chiro in a "cast the first stone" sort of manner.

Flaws in EBM (which pharma papers and conflicts are a slightly different thing) offer no defense or apology for chiropractic. I guess I'm confused as to what your point is here.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Speaking of pens.

https://www.bentpen.com/Pens/pens.html

bend.gif


imprintchiro.gif
 
It does actually. Lobsters can live to be 150 years old. Maybe that's the secret to their longevity, adjustment fish at the bottom of the sea that give them weekly crackings for clams. ;)

70638.jpg
 
Last edited:
facetguy said:
Too much "spin" when it comes to RCTs:
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001308

Conclusion

"Spin" was identified in about half of press releases and media coverage. In multivariable analysis, the main factor associated with "spin" in press releases was the presence of "spin" in the article abstract conclusion.
Click to expand...

I'm curious what point you are making here. This is opposite of what you have said previously. This paper actually instills confidence in the studies and shifts blame elsewhere.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Sorry, I'm kinda working my way backwards here.
facetguy said:
Advice: delete that post, especially the latter part about "good traits" and "undesirable traits" and government-forced abortions. That's a scary opinion.
Click to expand...
I think good/bad traits was a poor choice of words, but in concept I agree that emphasis needs to be put on investment rather than support for the population. So yes, if people are having babies that are communal burdens the government should not provide incentives to have more.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using SDN Mobile
 
Spec,

Competency for parenting is another related aspect to population improvement. What if a band of nonpartisan academic parenting experts (psychologists) got together, put together a set of screening criteria, curricula and examinations that anyone considering being a parent would have to pass in order to have and raise children? There are many low income housing projects where it is a crime how the kids have to live and how much abuse is allowed before child protective services can step in and do something about it. If parenting qualifications were introduced all kids would be ensured a minimum level of parenting fitness. Imagine how much that would raise school aptitude. And it would eliminate many of the welfare babies and moms in government projects because they would be deeded unfit parents. An unfit parent candidate could still study and have another opportunity to pass the test and mandatory temporary birth control could be instituted.

I think this is the only way to break the cycle of poverty through generations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

LADoc00
Patient outcomes based on identity politics "research"
Replies
0
Views
825
LADoc00
LADoc00
Avicenna144
Question about EBM
Replies
0
Views
918
Avicenna144
Avicenna144
S
Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology
Replies
1
Views
2K
ServantToTruth
S
P
Salaries in Medicine
Replies
41
Views
8K
dpmd
dpmd
H
Socialized Medicine
2
Replies
56
Views
5K
doctalaughs
D
Top