Lefty medical friend calls this the era of idiocracy
(media.kotakuinaction2.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (41)
sorted by:
Part of the issue is that medical training in the decades prior to COVID really emphasized Evidenced Based Medicine as dogma and the be-&-end-all of all modern principles.
If there wasn't an adequately-powered Randomized, Double Blinded Control Trial proving any concept in medicine, it was treated as though no other truth could exist.
Tradition, experience and personalized medicine were treated as quaint and dangerous if it didn't conform to the latest industry-backed and population-based "expert" clinical guidelines being handed down from on high.
Clinicians were evaluated more on their compliance and adherence to these guidelines than on their actual outcomes or patients' wishes.
TL; DR - There’s a lot of cognitive dissonance experienced at the suggestion of killing the infallible "Evidenced Base Medicine" orthodoxy.
It frightens professionals that there is no absolute truth and everything becomes uncertain and untethered if there isn't a landmark study that you can fall back upon for every ailment out & reflexive action out there.
Honestly, I wouldn't even mind if Evidence Based Medicine was how things were done.
As it stands, we are operating on Scientism Faith Based Medicine. There was never a single randomized, double-blind control trial of the mRNA injections, let alone Remdesivir & ventilators. There's also no such studies explaining the benefits of sex re-assignment surgery, or puberty blockers.
Instead, medical administrators seem to be making holy edicts of what The Science is, and making treatment policies off of that alone.
Pretty sure the initial Pfizer trial was a double blinded RCT.
The problem was that the initial fall 2020 approval was based off of 10 weeks of data that only showed a 1% absolute risk reduction in actually catching COVID.
The initial trial showed a 90% decrease in catching COVID in the jabbed arm vs the placebo (take of that what you will if it was to be believed or not).
But the elephant in the room in the initial study used for approval beyond the hidden deaths in the jabbed arm, etc - 99% of the people they studied during the 10 weeks over summer/fall 2020 didn't catch COVID either way whether they got jabbed or not.
This was still in the middle of all the hysteria over restrictions and after the Summer of Floyd.
So even if the jab actually worked, which it didn't, 99% of the pop didn't actually need it anyway according to Pfizer's own study during the height of the pandemic.
Then they went ahead in Spring 2021 and jabbed the control arm anyway once Pfizer got emergency authorization to purposely destroy the ability to follow the pureblood cohort over time and compare it to the mudblood experimental one.
Emergency authorization was only available because the medical community strenuously rejected any existing treatment.
There were doctors threatened with being struck off for trying to publish treatment protocols.
Eventually, there were clinics that were giving effective treatment, but they had to do it in secret or else they would be destroyed by the state government's regulatory agencies. All to set the stage that the Pfizer clot shot could be rolled out.
In Australia they passed an act of parliament granting Pfizer unlimited immunity to repercussions of the clot shot so the Australian medical system could get access to some of the first exports of the treatment.
It is a conspiracy with a shocking, staggering reach.
The ''experts'' will warn you about the dangers of reading a study yourself instead of trusting them to do it for you, are the same ''experts'' who swallowed hook-line-and-sinker the bait fake study made by fake ''scientists'' supposedly proving hydroxychroloquine was killing people in clinical trials with impossible-to-verrify data.
It was made-up. They paraded it as definitive proof.
That's assuming you can get to the fucking research when it's normally behind a paywall.
Solution: https://www.sci-hub.ru
I have personally been handed a claim from a research study, which was behind a University paywall. The next biggest danger is looking at the actual study, and having to read the whole thing because the abstract doesn't match the conclusion and the conclusion doesn't match the data. IF the data was collected and tabulated correctly (if you don't see error bars or error propagation, throw it away), you might find that the conclusion just fucks off and says the opposite of the data.
Evidence Based Medicine is exactly how it should be, but like every single other thing that's a great idea, you have to be able to totally and permanently exclude leftists from having any kind of power or authority or they'll destroy it.
Evidence based medicine as it is presently used is a bit of a weasel word to the lay person.
It is treated as synonymous with "proven medicine", but a statically powered outcome study is not truly proof, only evidence. A statistically significant result is still completely wrong >0-5% of the time. Mechanistic root cause studies are proof, and they don't need statistical analysis because if they are correct they are correct without fail. The vast majority of evidence based medical practice is just very carefully educated guesses.
In an ideal world it would be "proven medicine", but that is an almost impossible ask presently, we haven't proven how many of our drugs even work, especially for off-label uses. And they can't be been proven safe because that would necessitate a complete understanding of human biology to say it doesn't interact with any of those systems negatively.
Addendum - The biggest problem with evidence based medicine in a society that lacks sufficient integrity is how much easier it is to manipulate statistical data sets to give the result you want to than it is to fake a mechanistic proof that isn't extremely easy to prove false.
Well said.
Another concern with worshipping RCT trials and "expert" clinical guidelines as dogma is that it leads to conformity and treating populations over individuals.
Every patient with disease X is expected to be put on drugs Y and Z because a study said that it will prevent one "terrible outcome 1" if the 87 plebs pop the pill compliantly for 10 years straight.
But it's the needle-in-a-haystack problem that the 1 of 87 who will benefit can't be identified, while the other 86 are exposed to risk, cost and lack of autonomy for no benefit to themselves.
Having studied Pharmacy at university; the first year had a course on the reading and understanding biological studies.
It was made real clear that most studies are pushing an agenda by starting from the conclusion and working backwards, cherry-picking "facts" to support their conclusion.
I was working in a hospital at the time of Covid, in a non medical role. Policy was set from the top down by management and specific training and procedures were rolled out.
It was made very, very clear that if you toed the line that all medical incidents and similar bullshit would be ignored by the hospital (who have a lot of practice doing this) but if you kicked up a fuss they would do their best to have you fired.
Management used the opportunity to get rid of anyone who wasn't a follower, anyone who objected, or spoke up, or complained.
Covid 19 was an application of realpolitik and empire-building. It was a failure of the community.