Bias in published studies
JAMA. 2004 May 26;291(20):2457-65.
CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols.
Look forward to seeing this reference!!!
EBM and mainstream medicine antagonists will run with this report in order to belittle the credibility of the scientific method. It will be used to support the Death-by-Medicine like conspiracies, and to trump criticism of the positive, and support of the negative alt-med clinical trials. It will be used to favor current society's post-modernistic philosophy that everyone is equally right and wrong. Which is exactly what Alt-Med would have all believe.
Those who support EBM and who actually read the literature and follow the science understand scientific literary bias and apply this fact to the real world. The old med school adage: believe half of what you read (and none of what you hear.) For sure, the scientific community continues to try to get better at policing itself, as evidenced by this article and recent controversies over published trials. But, there are plenty of dollars available and other incentives to present and push the right data, so to speak.
No publication is without bias, either in content or existence. What is important to understand is that you can discover the different types and levels of bias and apply different degrees of credibility. The setting of these levels and degrees is often a matter of opinion (and bias); however, rational thought provides much common ground.
When I was little they said "If you believe you can achieve something, don't listen to anyone who says you can't." Now they say "If you believe something is correct, don't listen to anyone who says that it is not."
CONCLUSIONS: The reporting of trial outcomes is not only frequently incomplete but also biased and inconsistent with protocols.
Look forward to seeing this reference!!!
EBM and mainstream medicine antagonists will run with this report in order to belittle the credibility of the scientific method. It will be used to support the Death-by-Medicine like conspiracies, and to trump criticism of the positive, and support of the negative alt-med clinical trials. It will be used to favor current society's post-modernistic philosophy that everyone is equally right and wrong. Which is exactly what Alt-Med would have all believe.
Those who support EBM and who actually read the literature and follow the science understand scientific literary bias and apply this fact to the real world. The old med school adage: believe half of what you read (and none of what you hear.) For sure, the scientific community continues to try to get better at policing itself, as evidenced by this article and recent controversies over published trials. But, there are plenty of dollars available and other incentives to present and push the right data, so to speak.
No publication is without bias, either in content or existence. What is important to understand is that you can discover the different types and levels of bias and apply different degrees of credibility. The setting of these levels and degrees is often a matter of opinion (and bias); however, rational thought provides much common ground.
When I was little they said "If you believe you can achieve something, don't listen to anyone who says you can't." Now they say "If you believe something is correct, don't listen to anyone who says that it is not."
posted by nawledge at
6:46 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home