Once upon a time, physicians used clinical judgement and prescribed, and professional medical societies gave conditional recommendations for, interventions based on low or sometimes very low certainty data. No one called them miracles or referred to them by their veterinary use.
-
-
Replying to @EdoajoEric
Instead, now, some people
@GidMK@K_Sheldrick spend their entire spare time or spend all of their time for that matter attempting to discredit said interventions.2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
How is uncovering a trial that probably didnt happen a bad thing?
6 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
I'm not sure, although Dr Cadegiani made similar criticisms to me privately when I spoke to him before I went public. I explained to him that I am not "attempting to discredit" anything, I apply the same tests to all RCTs and observational studies over a certain size.
4 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
Also, I certainly don't spend "all" my time doing this. It is entirely unpaid work that takes up evenings and weekends, I honestly don't know how much longer I can devote to it
2 replies 1 retweet 25 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @K_Sheldrick and
I reckon there are quite a few fraudulent studies that we'll never know are fake because no one is actually incentivised to do this work and the only payment you get is hate mail, death threats, and internet randoms accusing you of working for the pharmaceutical industry
5 replies 14 retweets 97 likes -
Interesting, I havent gotten death threats but I am apparently going to be sentenced at the next Nuremberg trial for promoting experimental gene therapy. But also im going to jail bc Ive discussed that i believe ivermectin will ultimately be shown 2 have a + effect size in covid
3 replies 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @EdoajoEric @GidMK and
It doesnt matter that mRNA doesnt interact with the genome and represents the safest vaccine vector, or that low certainty data and clinician judgement routinely guide practice.
3 replies 0 retweets 7 likes -
I think a worthwhile point to make there though is whether low quality data *should* guide clinical practice. For every success story there are half a dozen treatments proven ultimately ineffective
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes -
The best evidence available should guide practice.
3 replies 0 retweets 6 likes
And if the best evidence available cannot exclude serious harm from the treatment?
-
-
Then it comes down to a risk of serious harm vs a risk of serious benefit. E.g. many treatment options for some cancers are known to definitely cause harm, but the groups are small enough we can't be certain of benefit.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @K_Sheldrick @GidMK and
I would argue if you think that there is a more than 50% chance of net benefit it's not ethical not to offer. (But I also think "first do no harm" is bollocks, there's no lesser moral culpability for harm that could be avoided than for harm actively caused)
0 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
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.