- Joined
- Sep 20, 2016
- Messages
- 1,802
- Reaction score
- 502
I keep seeing "evidence based medicine professors" who pretend to stand on some holy mountain of truth and impartiality whereby they "analyze" certain treatment options to deem their effectiveness/worthiness.
However, when you watch these "evidence based medicine professors" you quickly notice they are far from honest or impartial in their analyses.
AHRQ's analysis on opioids is the latest GIGO endeavor that this group did with their own personal moo shoo bias.
This can be applied across the board to their other "analyses" but you can get the idea of how GIGO fake physicians who only do "meta analysis" work while never seeing real patients operate. Jokers who gave up clinical medicine a long time ago have decided they are the "truth" tellers on efficacy for fields of medicine they have zero clinical experience in.
GIGO analysis includes:
1) Deeming studies they like "high quality" while ones they don't "low quality". They can largely obtain any results they want. There really is no "standard" for what is "high quality". Often, GIGO will take RCT and exclude it on arbitrary criteria while including a retrospective case study that they deem "higher quality".
2) Doing an analysis in ISOLATION whereby they don't judge the alternative treatment options in a similar manner. Opioids are the PERFECT example whereby they claim there are "no long term studies" pretending this is a UNIQUE thing for opioid medications when forgetting that ALL MEDICATIONS for pain have NO LONG TERM STUDIES including NSAIDS, Lyrica, Cymbalta, Neurontin, etc. Attacking one class of medication while ignoring others in an "analysis" is very biased.
For instance, AHRQ analysis of "alternatives" such as NSAIDs does NOT state the ALL STUDIES on NSAIDS are SHORT TERM AS WELL or their HUGE SIDE EFFECTS. Would you rather give a Norco or an NSAID to a chronic kidney disease patient? If they were intellectually honest, they would state that they can't RECOMMEND ANY medication by their previous analysis.
But they largely supported one medication over the other based upon a dishonest analysis.
This can also be applied to all the other moo shoo quackery they have recommended such as Thai Chi, Acupuncture, Chiro, etc. Where are the "long term" studies on these modalities?
If these GIGO were HONEST, they would say we "can't recommend anything" in terms of treatment because there are "no long term studies on any treatment modality".
Also, what is "long term" by definition? Who decides this? Once again, that is an arbitrary thing.
Yet they still seem to give recommendations in one direction for treatments that go against their own "criteria" for efficacy when recommending alternatives.
3) Fake discussions of "bias" whereby they will claim that Purdue "did their own studies on Oxycontin and covered up the results".
This might be even TECHNICALLY true but it negates the fact that ALL DRUG STUDIES are basically done by the big Pharma company that produces the drug.
Ergo, the "bias" argument has to apply across the board but instead they single out specific ones.
How were the studies of Lyrica any less biased than for Oxycontin? Were statins, Cymbalta, Cancer drugs, etc studies done by anyone by the big pharma companies that sold them?
Yet when these same jokers do an analysis on these "medications", they never seem to mention bias.
Could it be that they are consultants for the same big pharma companies that they recommend for? Nah they aren't biased right?
Same thing was done about "stem cell" research recently whereby the accusation as that "stem cell companies did the studies so they are biased". By that logic, NO PHARMACEUTICAL IN THE LAST 20 YEARS could be approved based upon bias.
When you watch how these GIGO practitioners selectively apply their trade to various treatments, you can readily find their OWN BIAS towards the things they like or for the things they are paid to like.
However, when you watch these "evidence based medicine professors" you quickly notice they are far from honest or impartial in their analyses.
AHRQ's analysis on opioids is the latest GIGO endeavor that this group did with their own personal moo shoo bias.
This can be applied across the board to their other "analyses" but you can get the idea of how GIGO fake physicians who only do "meta analysis" work while never seeing real patients operate. Jokers who gave up clinical medicine a long time ago have decided they are the "truth" tellers on efficacy for fields of medicine they have zero clinical experience in.
GIGO analysis includes:
1) Deeming studies they like "high quality" while ones they don't "low quality". They can largely obtain any results they want. There really is no "standard" for what is "high quality". Often, GIGO will take RCT and exclude it on arbitrary criteria while including a retrospective case study that they deem "higher quality".
2) Doing an analysis in ISOLATION whereby they don't judge the alternative treatment options in a similar manner. Opioids are the PERFECT example whereby they claim there are "no long term studies" pretending this is a UNIQUE thing for opioid medications when forgetting that ALL MEDICATIONS for pain have NO LONG TERM STUDIES including NSAIDS, Lyrica, Cymbalta, Neurontin, etc. Attacking one class of medication while ignoring others in an "analysis" is very biased.
For instance, AHRQ analysis of "alternatives" such as NSAIDs does NOT state the ALL STUDIES on NSAIDS are SHORT TERM AS WELL or their HUGE SIDE EFFECTS. Would you rather give a Norco or an NSAID to a chronic kidney disease patient? If they were intellectually honest, they would state that they can't RECOMMEND ANY medication by their previous analysis.
But they largely supported one medication over the other based upon a dishonest analysis.
This can also be applied to all the other moo shoo quackery they have recommended such as Thai Chi, Acupuncture, Chiro, etc. Where are the "long term" studies on these modalities?
If these GIGO were HONEST, they would say we "can't recommend anything" in terms of treatment because there are "no long term studies on any treatment modality".
Also, what is "long term" by definition? Who decides this? Once again, that is an arbitrary thing.
Yet they still seem to give recommendations in one direction for treatments that go against their own "criteria" for efficacy when recommending alternatives.
3) Fake discussions of "bias" whereby they will claim that Purdue "did their own studies on Oxycontin and covered up the results".
This might be even TECHNICALLY true but it negates the fact that ALL DRUG STUDIES are basically done by the big Pharma company that produces the drug.
Ergo, the "bias" argument has to apply across the board but instead they single out specific ones.
How were the studies of Lyrica any less biased than for Oxycontin? Were statins, Cymbalta, Cancer drugs, etc studies done by anyone by the big pharma companies that sold them?
Yet when these same jokers do an analysis on these "medications", they never seem to mention bias.
Could it be that they are consultants for the same big pharma companies that they recommend for? Nah they aren't biased right?
Same thing was done about "stem cell" research recently whereby the accusation as that "stem cell companies did the studies so they are biased". By that logic, NO PHARMACEUTICAL IN THE LAST 20 YEARS could be approved based upon bias.
When you watch how these GIGO practitioners selectively apply their trade to various treatments, you can readily find their OWN BIAS towards the things they like or for the things they are paid to like.
Last edited:
