Or this science? > "Only 7% of more than 60,000 clinical studies analysed passed criteria of being high quality and clinically relevant to patients"https://www.theguardian.com/healthcare-network/2017/nov/21/finance-trumps-patients-uk-healthcare-needs-inquiry?CMP=ema-1700&CMP= …
-
-
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.