Can't you cross check with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Medicines_Agency ?
The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
81–90 of 177 posts
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#82I normally cross-check with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agency_for_Healthcare_Research...
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#83I feel like we're so deep in the mire now, of this kind of corruption and control by wealthy people/interests/entities, it'll be tough, if not impossible, to dig out of. Being a fairly selfish person, that's not for my own self interest. Its a recipe for disaster. We need a massive overhaul. Edit: Lobbying and the ability for a fiat currency to control decisions, and revolving door setups, seems like the obvious firs…
It is only with a false view of the past that today can be seen as more corrupt than any point in history.
Of course there is an ebb and flow of where the corruption lies, and to what extent it takes hold. People tend to forget that we're living in the safest, most transparent, most free point in the whole of human history. We've been digging ourselves out of a pit of corruption for ten thousand years, don't let yourself be fooled into thinking things are terrible by focusing on a few things that have gotten worse over a decade or two. Big picture: things are and have been getting massively better continuously.
You should be celebrating that such corruption can so easily come to light instead of decrying doom that it has been discovered.
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question (not being sarcastic): what's the difference between 'science-based medicine' and 'evidence-based medicine'? I did a quick Wikipedia search, but the former just redirects to the latter.
I think the real question most people want to know the answer to is: Is one of them a front for homeopathy, anti-vaccinations and/or Scientology, or are they both mostly imperceptibly different degrees of serious research? Downvoters: Please explain. I have no idea about what any of SBM or EBM is, and I hadn’t even heard about any of them before now. This is genuinely what I what to know when I encounter the terms.
EBM is meant to be serious science, but there's been a real effort to co-opt it for quackery. SBM is an attempt to inject science back into it. The difference comes down to how they treat evidence.
For example, homeopathy states that a remedy becomes stronger the more dilute it becomes - i.e. the lower the dose, the stronger the effect. This defies the dose-response relationship between an active ingredient and its effect. Further, it states that even when no more of the active ingredient remains, it can still have an effect.
SBM would say homeopathy isn't worth studying because it has no plausibility based on what we know of medicine and physics.
EBM would say let's test it and see what we get.
The problem is that if you test the same thing enough times, or measure enough variables, and then discard the ones that don't meet your desired outcome, you can gather "evidence" for basically anything.
SBM would say weak evidence for a claim like homeopathy is meaningless, as the claim is extraordinary (it overturns physics), so you need stronger evidence than you might accept for a less exceptional claim. EBM doesn't make that judgment, it treats all evidence as equally valid.
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#85I feel like we're so deep in the mire now, of this kind of corruption and control by wealthy people/interests/entities, it'll be tough, if not impossible, to dig out of. Being a fairly selfish person, that's not for my own self interest. Its a recipe for disaster. We need a massive overhaul. Edit: Lobbying and the ability for a fiat currency to control decisions, and revolving door setups, seems like the obvious firs…
It is only with a false view of the past that today can be seen as more corrupt than any point in history. Of course there is an ebb and flow of where the corruption lies, and to what extent it takes hold. People tend to forget that we're living in the safest, most transparent, most free point in the whole of human history. We've been digging ourselves out of a pit of corruption for ten thousand years, don't let your…
Celebrating that is a recipe for resting on your laurels and allowing it to continue. There is nothing to celebrate here. You should be mad as hell and doing something about it.
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#86Could this type of investigation be done automatically. pulling data from FDA and cross referencing against medical journals and FDA redacted docs.
I would love to try however I don't feel i know enough about the available data to work out what would be required
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
Except the major drugs are brought to both markets usually and largely made by multinationals. Many drugs get approval in Europe first before they are tested in the US.
Most drugs go first on the American Market, because that's the most profitable one by far. Any source for your claim ?
I worked for a client that was trying to develop a medical device (stents). I was told it was cheaper and faster to get approval in Europe.
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#88Tokenadult, Out of curiosity, given that you've said in your previous comments that you believe medical questions are best answered with 'science-based medicine', which is a philosophy that explicitly rejects evidence-based medicine: do you believe that the FDA covering up scientific fraud is bad, or do you agree with the FDA's argument that it's justified? Also, do you still believe that "It's an exaggeration (contr…
Question (not being sarcastic): what's the difference between 'science-based medicine' and 'evidence-based medicine'? I did a quick Wikipedia search, but the former just redirects to the latter.
EBM can only be the first step. The goal has to be a thourough understanding of the domain so that testing a specific case is no longer necessary. This is something that many proponents of EBM do not seem to understand.
You do not test basic physical laws, you just look them up.
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#89Earlier quoted context omitted.
Question (not being sarcastic): what's the difference between 'science-based medicine' and 'evidence-based medicine'? I did a quick Wikipedia search, but the former just redirects to the latter.
I think the real question most people want to know the answer to is: Is one of them a front for homeopathy, anti-vaccinations and/or Scientology, or are they both mostly imperceptibly different degrees of serious research? Downvoters: Please explain. I have no idea about what any of SBM or EBM is, and I hadn’t even heard about any of them before now. This is genuinely what I what to know when I encounter the terms.
One definite data point I can illustrate, through personal experience.
There is a treatment for trauma (PTSD etc.) called EMDR (Eye Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing) which has over 20 years of statistical evidence backing up it's efficacy. To date, no-one really knows how it works (there are a few good theories, and hopefully modern neuroscience can help here).
Currently, it's "EBM". There is a huge amount of evidence to show it works, but no proven theory as to why.
It's not "SBM" yet, as there still isn't a demonstrable mechanism or theory that describes why it works.
homeopathy, antivaxers and scientoligists don't even have any evidence to show they work. They don't even count as "EBM".
Re: The FDA buries evidence of fraud in medical trials. My students and I dug it up
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, technically they are replicating the study over 50+ different hospitals until they reach some confidence interval on the safety data. If you get fraud in a small fraction of them, it should not (and if you read the actual testimony, does not) impact the net result.
If you need 50 experiments to actually show that the effect exists, then even a small fraction of fraudulent experiments can heavily skew the result when looking at confidence intervals. Think of selfhealing as a coin toss with 50/50 chance and a medication increasing this chance: a) Medication increases healing chances to 80% -> Only few experiments needed. b) Medication increases healing chances to 55% -> Many expe…
Yes. Many medications are not that effective. The supposed effect seen in clinical trials is very small and could be easily manipulated.