Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

“Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

retractionwatch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#31

Post by ben_w »

Pimpus wrote: post #27
ben_w wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Donald Rumsfeld also convince the European Union, who have their own interests and a similar sized economy, that it was safe? https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 or the “more than 90 countries worldwide” [1] that the Canadian government refers to on their own website? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti... There are certainly cases where I don’t trust USA regulations. This jus…

Most of these same countries also outlawed dmt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Your argument is basically just an appeal to authority. As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.

Authorities are called such for a reason. It is only a fallacy to invoke an authority who is unrelated to the subject, or if your opponent is also an authority.

> As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.

On the subject of fallacies, this one is called the “appeal to nature”.

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#32

Post by donatzsky »

ben_w wrote: post #31
Pimpus wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of these same countries also outlawed dmt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Your argument is basically just an appeal to authority. As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.

Authorities are called such for a reason. It is only a fallacy to invoke an authority who is unrelated to the subject, or if your opponent is also an authority. > As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical. On the subject of fallacies, this one is called the “appeal to nature”.

If said authorities were infallible, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#33

Post by newcrobuzon »

It is a sad reality that some of the regulatory agencies have been captured by the industry groups. This is especially concerning in healthcare and pharma industry. Take for example Vioxx and Opioid issues: Merck Manipulated the Science about the Drug Vioxx - https://www.ucsusa.org/manipulating-science-about-drug-vioxx Purdue infiltrated WHO, manipulated opioid policies to boost sales, report finds - https://arstechnica.com/science/2019/05/world-health-organiz...

Yet it is still surprising to see that on HN in general anyone questioning safety of pharmaceutical products get downvoted into oblivion.

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#34

Post by dalbasal »

PeterStuer wrote: post #16
ekianjo wrote: post #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 o…

Sales and Marketing do control which outcomes are allowed to be published though. If you allow me selective disclosure of trials I can show you that my roulette strategy is infallible.

As a sales and marketing person... I'll admit to a lot of blame for a lot of bad things... definitely playing with words to they point where they mean very little.

Selective publishing and "p-hacking" though, these are research/academia pathologies not marketing ones.

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#35

Post by TeMPOraL »

donatzsky wrote: post #32
ben_w wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authorities are called such for a reason. It is only a fallacy to invoke an authority who is unrelated to the subject, or if your opponent is also an authority. > As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical. On the subject of fallacies, this one is called the “appeal to nature”.

If said authorities were infallible, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.

"Not infallible" doesn't mean "always wrong". Just because FDA made some mistakes, doesn't mean you can start doing the opposite of everything they say and live a happy and healthy life.

Authorities may be "in the pocket of Big Pharma", but by default, I'd still trust them much more than yours or mine non-expert opinion.

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#36

Post by TeMPOraL »

Pimpus wrote: post #27
ben_w wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did Donald Rumsfeld also convince the European Union, who have their own interests and a similar sized economy, that it was safe? https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 or the “more than 90 countries worldwide” [1] that the Canadian government refers to on their own website? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti... There are certainly cases where I don’t trust USA regulations. This jus…

Most of these same countries also outlawed dmt ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Your argument is basically just an appeal to authority. As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.

> As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical.

Don't worry, I stripped the XML tags from regular sugar and mixed them up with my aspartame; it cheats reality into thinking that the sweetener is natural, preventing it from hurting me.

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#37

Post by AstralStorm »

donatzsky wrote: post #32
ben_w wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Authorities are called such for a reason. It is only a fallacy to invoke an authority who is unrelated to the subject, or if your opponent is also an authority. > As far as artificial sweeteners go, you'd have to be an idiot to knowingly consume an unnatural, laboratory made chemical. On the subject of fallacies, this one is called the “appeal to nature”.

If said authorities were infallible, I'd agree with you. Unfortunately that is rarely the case.

Nature is full of poisons too. Sugar is one! (In the right big and/or chronic dose. Organisms have to deal with glycation damage all the time.)

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#38

Post by fit2rule »

ben_w wrote: post #19
Alex3917 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Did Donald Rumsfeld also convince the European Union, who have their own interests and a similar sized economy, that it was safe? https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/press/news/131210 or the “more than 90 countries worldwide” [1] that the Canadian government refers to on their own website? https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/food-nutriti... There are certainly cases where I don’t trust USA regulations. This jus…

There is a big difference between what law-makers/legislators think is safe in the context of their desire to promote the economies of their commercial partners, and what scientists consider safe in the context of human health and safety.

The two cannot be conflated.

Scientists can call for something to be re-considered, safety-wise, long after legislators have put their deals to bed. There are countless examples of this throughout history, where researchers, engineers, scientists have had to struggle very hard to get politicians - who have their own interests - to address the issue.

Too many times, research which runs counter to economic narratives is ignored or, worse, suppressed in order that people can 'continue living their lives as consumers unhindered'.

Suggesting that people bow to the authority of legislators over that of human-health scientists serves only to perpetuate the conditions which endanger us all.

Remember, asbestos was once 'scientifically and legally proven to be safe' at one point. Too many times in history, what the collective thinks is safe is only so, because the collective ("everyone thinks the same") says so ..

Re: “Evidence-based medicine has been hijacked”: John Ioannidis (2016)

#39

Post by wazoox »

ekianjo wrote: post #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 o…

Until recently, Big Pharma CEOs were either medical doctors of pharmacists. Marketing and finance were important, but not a driving force. Nowadays all of Big Pharma is headed by bean counters, marketing drones and finance guys, and are only interested in EBITDA. This is the main problem in all industries were science and engineering once prevailed.
Post reply on HN