"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
-- Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet (top 5 most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world)
I’ve worked for a few clinical startups during my short stint in the pharmaceutical world so far.
Without a doubt, most of these companies get by through exploiting the “compassionate use” or other avenues to get FDA approval without the full, rigorous (and believe me, sometimes completely unhelpful and unwarranted) testing on large population sizes. Even then, most of these companies have to employ biostatisticians to massage their data into looking presentable and effective. This is to say nothing of the “safety” of their experimental treatments. Most of the time, they’re trying out treatments on biased populations that may be prone to give a positive signal (like recovering cancer patients).
I have yet to see a clinical trial sponsored by one of these companies that implements a “lifestyle control” group to compare patient outcomes:
are the patients actively exercising?
-are the doctors required to take appropriate nutrient/vitamin titers?
are the patients being held to an adequate diet (such as low carb, high fat, high micronutrient) to accurately compare optimal immune function to their treatment?
are the patients being actively monitored to ensure no aggravating factors diminish their chances of successful treatment?
I was reading about the origin of the discovery of viruses. Koch's postulates were originally written to be about Bacteria, because viruses hadn't been "discovered" yet. Shortly after the publication of Koch's postulates, they found a "tiny bacteria," smaller than any that had yet been discovered. Then they found it wasn't even a bacteria, it was something entirely different called a virus. And wouldn't you know it, the way it operates completely evades all 4 of Koch's postulates?
One thing they do it to not publish studies which show their drug or whatever has no benefit. They usually bury those and only publish the ones that show benefit. So this greatly warps the science in favor of the drug.
What if I were, to say, look at the Billboard Top 100 as my GUIDELINE for what good music is? I would have been listening to shit the last 50 years. No?
Lancet pdf source.
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."
-- Dr. Richard Horton, editor-in-chief of the Lancet (top 5 most prestigious peer-reviewed medical journals in the world)
https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736%2815%2960696-1.pdf
Doctors have my scorn for being the foot soldiers of psychopaths.
I’ve worked for a few clinical startups during my short stint in the pharmaceutical world so far.
Without a doubt, most of these companies get by through exploiting the “compassionate use” or other avenues to get FDA approval without the full, rigorous (and believe me, sometimes completely unhelpful and unwarranted) testing on large population sizes. Even then, most of these companies have to employ biostatisticians to massage their data into looking presentable and effective. This is to say nothing of the “safety” of their experimental treatments. Most of the time, they’re trying out treatments on biased populations that may be prone to give a positive signal (like recovering cancer patients).
I have yet to see a clinical trial sponsored by one of these companies that implements a “lifestyle control” group to compare patient outcomes:
Pay an "expert" enough dough and they'll attach their name to anything..
Trust the solicitor.
I was reading about the origin of the discovery of viruses. Koch's postulates were originally written to be about Bacteria, because viruses hadn't been "discovered" yet. Shortly after the publication of Koch's postulates, they found a "tiny bacteria," smaller than any that had yet been discovered. Then they found it wasn't even a bacteria, it was something entirely different called a virus. And wouldn't you know it, the way it operates completely evades all 4 of Koch's postulates?
One thing they do it to not publish studies which show their drug or whatever has no benefit. They usually bury those and only publish the ones that show benefit. So this greatly warps the science in favor of the drug.
Good collection of quotes.
It's like anything else.
What if I were, to say, look at the Billboard Top 100 as my GUIDELINE for what good music is? I would have been listening to shit the last 50 years. No?
don't know why you're downvoted. ...unless maybe Casey Casem lurks here.