Don't immunise your child, lose benefits?

[Guest sibon]

What we actually need is access to unbiased medical research. I'm far from a sceptic about the medical profession, I'm certainly well removed from Onewheeldave's position, but he raises an important issue about conflict of interest and pursuit of profit.

 

The WHO have put out a call for all clinical trials to be published. That would be a very welcome step forward.

[onewheeldave]

You might want to engage your critical thinking then...

 

"16,318 eligible colonoscopies (96% performed by board-certified gastroenterologists)," - that means that 652 were not performed by a certfied gasteroentolonogist.

 

Perhaps then this figure could have a disproportionatly large series of screw ups and that would inflate the figures for the skilled 96%?

You asked for links. I've given you 2. There's never been a scientific study done that, in hindsight, couldn't have fault picked with it.

 

If you're claiming that colonoscopys are safer, and that the number of serious complications are considerably lower than 1 in 200, perhaps it's time you posted your evidence for your claim.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 15:35 ----------

 

 

 

1. Scare people that a colonoscopy is so very dangerous

2. Give people hope with an alternative semi plausible but unproven theory

3. Pander to their gullability and hope by selling the panacea

4. Profit!!

 

There is a clear cut conflict of interest here. The words to describe the good doctor are "quack" and "charlaton"

 

I can't really say other than what I said before. If you disagree with any of it, then address the relevant point.

 

His books advocate starchy vegetables. Potatos, corn etc can be bought from any grocery.

 

I doubt his site sells potatos, from what I can see it's mainly low fat vegan pot noodles/soups. I previously put forward my theory that he sells it for those who after a life time of eating processed junk, needed something to ease the switch to actual food.

 

He doesn't say a healthy diet is an alternative to needing a colonoscopy!

 

A colonoscopy is a diagnostic procedure- he critisises it on the grounds that, in his opinion, it unecessarily risky in proportion to it's benefits.

 

For that reason, I'm sure he'd advocate extreme caution to anyone considering a colonoscopy, including those on a diet of processed junk.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 15:37 ----------

 

What we actually need is access to unbiased medical research. I'm far from a sceptic about the medical profession, I'm certainly well removed from Onewheeldave's position, but he raises an important issue about conflict of interest and pursuit of profit.

 

The WHO have put out a call for all clinical trials to be published. That would be a very welcome step forward.

 

It would. And, it'd be interesting to know who's against it, and what their objections are.

Edited April 14, 2015 by onewheeldave

[Obelix]

You asked for links. I've given you 2. There's never been a scientific study done that, in hindsight, couldn't have fault picked with it.

 

If you're claiming that colonoscopys are safer, and that the number of serious complications are considerably lower than 1 in 200, perhaps it's time you posted your evidence for your claim.

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 15:35 ----------

 

 

I can't really say other than what I said before. If you disagree with any of it, then address the relevant point.

 

I never asked you for links about colonoscopys.

 

I'm not claiming they are safer. What makes you think I am?

 

I am pointing out where a study is flawed. Can you challenge that reasoning? If not I and others are entitled to dismiss the findings of that part of the study.

 

I've deomonstrated where there is a conflict of interest. Unless you can show why it's false, I and others are entitled to infer there is a conflict of interest.

[Guest sibon]

It would. And, it'd be interesting to know who's against it, and what their objections are.

 

Ask Ben Goldacre. A very good book, if you haven't read it.

[JFKvsNixon]

Ask Ben Goldacre. A very good book, if you haven't read it.

 

Bad science, by the same author, is a good read as well, I think that onewheeldave would benefit from giving that book a read.

[onewheeldave]

Bad science, by the same author, is a good read as well, I think that onewheeldave would benefit from giving that book a read.

 

So, when Ben Goldacre says, in his other book-

 

Ben Goldacre puts the $600bn global pharmaceutical industry under the microscope. What he reveals is a fascinating, terrifying mess. ***Now updated with the latest government responses to the book***

 

Doctors and patients need good scientific evidence to make informed decisions. But instead, companies run bad trials on their own drugs, which distort and exaggerate the benefits by design. When these trials produce unflattering results, the data is simply buried. All of this is perfectly legal. In fact, even government regulators withhold vitally important data from the people who need it most. Doctors and patient groups have stood by too, and failed to protect us. Instead, they take money and favours, in a world so fractured that medics and nurses are now educated by the drugs industry.

 

The result: patients are harmed in huge numbers.

are you a bit more open to it than when Mr Mcdougal (or indeed, me) says the same things?

 

---------- Post added 14-04-2015 at 17:05 ----------

 

I never asked you for links about colonoscopys.

 

I'm not claiming they are safer. What makes you think I am?

Sorry, got you confused with the other dude.

I am pointing out where a study is flawed. Can you challenge that reasoning? If not I and others are entitled to dismiss the findings of that part of the study.

 

I've deomonstrated where there is a conflict of interest. Unless you can show why it's false, I and others are entitled to infer there is a conflict of interest.

I did challenge the reasoning, by pointing out that pretty much every study has such flaws in it. For your reasoning to have much impact, you'd have to show that that particular study contains significantly more flawage than the baseline level of flaw that all studies have.

 

And, concerning conflict of interest- my previous post showed that pretty much every person in the medical system has some conflict of interest- generally a lot deeper and more serious than Dr McDougal having a (low fat vegan) pot noodles sideline going on.

 

Someone earlier on your side of the fence pointed out that zero risk doesn't exist. Similarly, zero flaws (in studies) and zero conflicts of interest don't exist. Critisising, as you are doing, a study for not being completely absent of flaws, or, an individual, for not being 100% free of conflict of interest, doesn't hold much water. Especially if the studies and individuals you do back, are worse in those respects.

Edited April 14, 2015 by onewheeldave

[JFKvsNixon]

So, when Ben Goldacre says, in his other book-

 

are you a bit more open to it than when Mr Mcdougal (or indeed, me) says the same things?[

 

Nope, because he uses a sound scientific approach to critique the problems. If you read Bad Science, you'll understand my issue with people like Dr McDougal, who uses basically the same techniques as big the pharmaceutical companies to make his money.

 

In general, the medical industry in this country is not part of big pharmaceutical problem. So don't mix up the research carried out by the medics and research carried out by the pharmaceutical companies. One group as a rule want to do the best for their patients and the other group wants to do the best for their shareholders.

 

Seriously start with Bad Science and then take it from there.

Edited April 14, 2015 by JFKvsNixon

[onewheeldave]

 

Seriously start with Bad Science and then take it from there.

 

I think I'm going to be pretty busy starting with the quotes from 'Bad Pharma' that are spread all over the internet, such as

 

Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird, unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques which are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects. Regulators see most of the trial data, but only from early on in a drug's life, and even then they don't give this data to doctors or patients, or even to other parts of government. This distorted evidence is then communicated and applied in a distorted fashion.

In their forty years of practice after leaving medical school, doctors hear about what works through ad hoc oral traditions, from sales reps, colleagues or journals. But those colleagues can be in the pay of drug companies – often undisclosed – and the journals are too. And so are the patient groups. And finally, academic papers, which everyone thinks of as objective, are often covertly planned and written by people who work directly for the companies, without disclosure. Sometimes whole academic journals are even owned outright by one drug company. Aside from all this, for several of the most important and enduring problems in medicine, we have no idea what the best treatment is, because it's not in anyone's financial interest to conduct any trials at all. These are ongoing problems, and although people have claimed to fix many of them, for the most part they have failed; so all these problems persist, but worse than ever, because now people can pretend that everything is fine after all.

 

(link to book summary here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma)

 

At last we seem to have found some common ground- a person who not only recognises the extent of the pharmaceutical companies corrupting influence on our medical system, but, apparently, maintains the standard of evidence based approach that commands the respect of people like yourself.

Edited April 14, 2015 by onewheeldave

[JFKvsNixon]

I think I'm going to be pretty busy starting with the quotes from 'Bad Pharma' that are spread all over the internet, such as

 

 

 

(link to book summary here- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Pharma)

 

At last we seem to have found some common ground- a person who not only recognises the extent of the pharmaceutical companies corrupting influence on our medical system, but, apparently, maintains the standard of evidence based approach that commands the respect of people like yourself.

 

I think that you need to read his books so you can understand the quotes in context of how he meant them.

[onewheeldave]

I think that you need to read his books so you can understand the quotes in context of how he meant them.

 

The quote above is from his book. I didn't need to read that quote to know that pharmaceutical company influence and corruption runs deep through the core of our medical system- I found that out long ago.

 

It's just good to now that when I post such things about pharmaceutical company influence and corruption in the medical system and people like you dismiss my reasons and evidence link as naive 'bad science', that I can quote you some stuff from Ben Goldacre and you'll have some respect for it.

 

Obviously not with stuff about vaccines, as he's very much in favour of them, but, certainly when it comes to pharmaceutical company influence and corruption in the medical system, he's got a lot to say on the subject, and, what he says does not bode well for those who think the problem is a small one.