On 30/09/2012 3:40 PM, Dogman wrote:

http://blog.ted.com/2012/09/27/5-pre...heir-patients/

"'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 that are
flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the benefits of
treatments,” writes Goldacre in his book. '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.'"

Yet another reason that most "studies" today are mostly propaganda,
and, in many ways, not much different than a bunch of anecdotes.

This is why the government, not the drug companies, should test drugs.
If drug companies are to do it then they should be closely monitored and
all results published. The problem of "bottom drawer" studies should be addressed
by ensuring that results of all studies are made public.


http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...itute-anecdote

"Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence"
"Epidemiology, in its present form, a poor substitute for anecdote."

"It is not to be wondered at that anecdotal evidence is the major
source of knowledge in this subject, practical epidemiology has failed
the patient completely, and confidence in the system has been badly
affected."


Epidemiology can never be a substitute for a random controlled study. Epidemiology
studies cannot control for confounding.

--
-jw