“Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
retractionwatch.com
“Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#2> The sales and marketing departments in most companies are more powerful than their R&D departments.
Yes, this is correct.
> Hence, the design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination of this clinical evidence becomes an advertisement tool.
This does not follow well logically. The design of clinical trials still belongs to R&D and not Marketing/Sales departments. Even if Marketing/Sales want to target for a specific outcome, there is nothing saying that this particular outcome will be met until you actually try it clinically. And specific outcomes are usually desirable outcomes: for example, showing that your drug is non just superior to placebo, but superior to the current best-in-class treatment. Or measuring patient-related outcomes that are tied to economic value (for example, making a patient recover faster has tangible societal benefits - they can come back to work, be an active family member, etc...) is also relevant these days.
So, there is not a strong link between "pushing for an outcome that you can advertise" and "this outcome being clinically meaningless". If it were meaningless, FDAs and other regulatory bodies would not even accept it during the clinical trial design review phase.
> As for basic research
Basic research should be the responsibility of academics, not companies. And they do. But not many academics focus on "checking whether what we have been using for 20 years really works", there's too much priority on new clinical targets.
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#3> The sales and marketing departments in most companies are more powerful than their R&D departments. Yes, this is correct. > Hence, the design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination of this clinical evidence becomes an advertisement tool. This does not follow well logically. The design of clinical trials still belongs to R&D and not Marketing/Sales departments. Even if Marketing/Sales want to target for a specific o…
> This does not follow well logically.
Instead of trying to reason from first principles about whether or not what he's saying is true, maybe instead go on Amazon and buy one of the dozens of books on the subject.
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#4> The sales and marketing departments in most companies are more powerful than their R&D departments. Yes, this is correct. > Hence, the design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination of this clinical evidence becomes an advertisement tool. This does not follow well logically. The design of clinical trials still belongs to R&D and not Marketing/Sales departments. Even if Marketing/Sales want to target for a specific o…
> If it were meaningless, FDAs and other regulatory bodies would not even accept it during the clinical trial design review phase.
Go look up how many corporate stooges are in the place in the FDA over the years.
A good starting point is the history of Aspartame, I'd link some articles, but I suspect the sources would be shot down and evidence ignored. The people at the FDA were complicit in its approval, despite scientific evidence showing it was dangerous.
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#5> The sales and marketing departments in most companies are more powerful than their R&D departments. Yes, this is correct. > Hence, the design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination of this clinical evidence becomes an advertisement tool. This does not follow well logically. The design of clinical trials still belongs to R&D and not Marketing/Sales departments. Even if Marketing/Sales want to target for a specific o…
> This does not follow well logically
I think it's an observation, not a philosophical argument.
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#6> The sales and marketing departments in most companies are more powerful than their R&D departments. Yes, this is correct. > Hence, the design, conduct, reporting, and dissemination of this clinical evidence becomes an advertisement tool. This does not follow well logically. The design of clinical trials still belongs to R&D and not Marketing/Sales departments. Even if Marketing/Sales want to target for a specific o…
> If it were meaningless, FDAs and other regulatory bodies would not even accept it during the clinical trial design review phase. Go look up how many corporate stooges are in the place in the FDA over the years. A good starting point is the history of Aspartame, I'd link some articles, but I suspect the sources would be shot down and evidence ignored. The people at the FDA were complicit in its approval, despite sci…
I would appreciate links to articles on the subject, if you have them handy!
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If it were meaningless, FDAs and other regulatory bodies would not even accept it during the clinical trial design review phase. Go look up how many corporate stooges are in the place in the FDA over the years. A good starting point is the history of Aspartame, I'd link some articles, but I suspect the sources would be shot down and evidence ignored. The people at the FDA were complicit in its approval, despite sci…
I would appreciate links to articles on the subject, if you have them handy!
The tl;dr is that the same guys who fabricated the evidence about Saddam Hussein having WMDs also fabricated evidence for aspartame being safe.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_8...
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#8(2016)
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#9There wasn’t a lot of substance in this article, would have to read Dr. Ioannidis’ referenced papers to actually understand his point.
Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would appreciate links to articles on the subject, if you have them handy!
The tl;dr is that the same guys who fabricated the evidence about Saddam Hussein having WMDs also fabricated evidence for aspartame being safe. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/donald-rumsfeld-and-the-s_b_8...
[deleted]