But take a different extreme, for perspective. It’s totally legal to write a blog post saying “this drug worked for me!” The fact that this is legal tells you *nothing* about how much credence to put in the post. Free speech doesn’t come with a quality guarantee.
-
Show this thread
-
It’s possible that if we allow more crappy studies *and amp up skepticism accordingly* there will be valuable signal amid the noise. Signal that we’re not allowed to generate today.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
I actually *agree* with
@Dereklowe that most attempts to make medicines that bypass the regulatory system are crap. And I appreciate his work in explaining to the public *why* they’re crap.1 reply 0 retweets 4 likesShow this thread -
The *ethical* position I take (which I know most people don’t agree with) is that you have a right & responsibility to decide for yourself what is crap. And if you want to take risks with your own health, that’s your business.
5 replies 3 retweets 10 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
Thanks for giving
@Dereklowe a deserved signal boost. My thoughts have gone in a similar direction as yours, but with a bit of collectivism on responsibility for making information available for deciding what is crap.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrgunn @s_r_constantin
Conditional on many people being unable or unwilling to decide for themselves (maybe they'd rather spend their time thinking about other stuff!), my ethical position is that it's not right to leave a guidance vacuum, because there's any number of hucksters that will fill it.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @mrgunn
I think guidance is really helpful! It’s a public service to provide it. It just shouldn’t be a monopoly. Any more than the US should establish a religion just because spiritual guidance is valuable.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin
I'm confused. There are some places where standards of practice are more authoritarian than I would like, but there aren't guidance monopolies. What are you thinking of here?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @mrgunn
Which drugs can be legally marketed or imported, which manufacturers can make drugs, etc, is decided by a monopoly.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @s_r_constantin @mrgunn
I think you’re talking about something more like clinical guidelines but written for laypeople, which is an exciting if daunting idea. The challenge is enormous.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Oh that is super hard, and I don’t think it’s necessarily needed. It’s reasonable to outsource medical decisions to professionals you trust.
-
-
Replying to @s_r_constantin @mrgunn
But I’m having to explain whom to trust and whom not as much! There isn’t a shortcut for that! I’m about to make a reliables Twitter list for my coworkers, who work in complex health comms and are still losing their balance p regularly. Idk how you ‘authorize the authorities’
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @anaisnein9 @mrgunn
You have more people doing the same job as you! And they’ll come to different conclusions! p l u r a l i s m.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 14 more replies
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.