>>But that said, @niamhnolan8, you could learn a lot from @willcpowell's response to this 'intrusion'. I don't know if you're a HCP or just have an interest in healthcare, but compassion goes a long way. A little more on your part here would not be entirely out of place. >>
-
-
Yes. And it's not just peer review. Even just holding certain opinions, about the efficacy of antidepressants or the usefulness of statins, or the safety of vaccines for example, are verboten in academic medical research.
-
It's funny, even though there's nothing that really surprises me in there, to hear someone in your position express it so clearly, is very striking. Thank you once more.
-
You're welcome. It's a strange double-think. Everyone knows, for example, that antidepressants are not much better than placebo. Yet we persist with the fiction that they work and write papers and grant bids that kind of implicitly assume that they do work.
-
I must make clear that it's not malice or intentional deception. More a feeling that this is the best we have at the present time.
-
Appreciated. Perhaps if clinicians were also as ready to acknowledge the shortcomings as you have been, it would provoke a more meaningful debate about safety/efficacy & future research. Until then, the bar is way too low, imho.
-
Clinicians are at a loss. They are too busy confronting a tsunami of human misery every day to debate the research. There are notable and valiant exceptions, of course.
-
Absolutely. I've encountered a few of the exceptions. Far too few, but a few. Many just rely on clinical guidelines and a bit of CPD from the local pharma reps. It's no wonder we're in a mess when you think about it...
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Hence her comment on my twt. She has autistic children but wants ppl to believe they were made autistic by childhood inoculations