Latest topics
» Solar Nebula Hypothesis Ready for History's Dustbin?
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 11:06 am by PurpleSkyz

» A Lot Going on at the ISS
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 11:04 am by PurpleSkyz

» Shadow People - The Mysterious Dark Watchers
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 10:58 am by PurpleSkyz

» COVID19 UPDATES - U.S. Marines and Navy Prepare to Execute Pandemic Plan plus MORE
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 10:47 am by PurpleSkyz

» Strange space vehicles seem to appear out of flashes of light
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 10:30 am by PurpleSkyz

» Police Obtain Warrant for Ancestry.com DNA Database
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 10:28 am by PurpleSkyz

» Assange most important symbol of press freedom today – journalist
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 10:26 am by PurpleSkyz

» DR. JOSEPH FARRELL: PERMINDEX PAPERS II NASA UFO JFK ASSASSINATION DEEP STATE BEARER BONDS MYSTERY!
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 10:18 am by PurpleSkyz

» Meanwhile in London.........
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 6:15 am by bs4ever

» POOPness for FEB 21: RELEASE... NOT REALLY JUST SEND ME MORE MONEY!!!
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyToday at 12:56 am by PurpleSkyz

» ‘Food As Medicine’, Return to Nature
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 8:02 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Jenny McCarthy talks to Blue Chicken Cult Leaders about their documentary "The Conman Secret."
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 7:54 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Body Language: Mike Bloomberg First Debate Performance
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 7:53 pm by PurpleSkyz

» BiNaural beats study music - improve memory and concentration
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 2:40 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Steve Bassett Brilliantly Explains Why UFO Disclosure Is Closer Than Ever Before
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 2:33 pm by PurpleSkyz

» New snail species named after Greta Thunberg
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 2:29 pm by PurpleSkyz

» Japan to launch Phobos sample-return mission
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 2:22 pm by PurpleSkyz

» This Already Happened on our Earth... !! 2020 . Events From all over The World
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 11:09 am by PurpleSkyz

» Conference on Extraterrestrials in the Vatican: This is what happened
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 11:07 am by PurpleSkyz

» Soğmatar Built By The Lost Aliens of Malta?
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? EmptyYesterday at 11:01 am by PurpleSkyz





***********

CLICK THE SUBSCRIBE BUTTON BELOW TO RECEIVE OUR DAILY NEWSLETTER

A 2ND EMAIL COMPLETES THE ACTIVATION PROCESS




CLICK THE PURPLE BUTTON TO VIEW OUR LATEST POSTS







You are not connected. Please login or register

OUT OF MIND » POISON PLANET » VACCINE TRUTHS: MEDICAL INDUSTRY LIES » Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish?

Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish?

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? Empty Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? on Sun Dec 01, 2019 1:38 am

PurpleSkyz

PurpleSkyz
Admin
Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish?
Date: November 30, 2019 Author: Nwo Report  

Can You Trust What Medical Journals Publish? ?u=https%3A%2F%2Ftse2.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3Fid%3DOIP


Source: John Dale Dunn
I have repeatedly questioned the validity of medical journal claims in regards to politically charged issues like air pollution  and climate  change, as well as global warming  here at AT.  More recently, I showed how a major medical journal violates basic rules on scientific inquiry .
There is another important problem with medical research as reported in medical journals and then often expanded by the lay press as big news: that medical journal articles are often proven wrong for unreliable results or promotion of treatments that are not beneficial or not any more efficacious than treatments they propose to replace.
I was reminded recently of this problem by an article  in Emergency Medicine News, a medical specialty newspaper, that reported on a study  by Dr. Vinay Prasad, a comprehensive review of randomized clinical trials in the Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, and the New England Journal of Medicine identifying 396 medical reversals.  Reversals are cases where medical journal articles are found to be faulty, misleading and just plain wrong.
When high-flying medical researchers on environmental issues use bad methods and report false results, it is motivated by political agendas usually, but when medical researchers report what end up being unreliable results in other areas, it is often due to biases and fallacious thinking and lack of effort to assiduously test their results and repeat them to assure that the hypothesis is valid and reliable and the results are testable and verified.
Some “rules” turned out to be wrong, for example tight blood sugar control, mechanical chest compressions, protocols for treatment of sepsis (infections with severe complications).  The unreliability problem is troublesome, since the study shows that many recommended treatments and strategies are not efficacious.
Here are some additional specifics from the Prasad study:

  • Mechanical compression was not better  than manual compressions for CPR. (JAMA. 2014;311[1]:53)


  • Early and aggressive  methods for care of patients with sepsis (severe infection) were no better than usual care. (JAMA. 2017;318[13]:1233)
  • The REACT-2 trial found  that routine use of an immediate total-body CT did not impact mortality or benefit compared with conventional imaging and selective CT scanning in patients with severe trauma. (Lancet. 2016;388[10045]:673)
  • Platelet transfusion after acute hemorrhagic stroke was found by the 2015 PATCH study to worsen survival  in the platelet transfusion group (68%) compared with the standard care group (77%). (Lancet. 2016;387[10038]:2605)

The authors were so alert to the problem that they created a website for best practices that, like other such practice websites, intends to alert physicians  to the realities of the research mistakes and misinformation.
Medical reversals and rejection of medical protocols and suggested treatments are too common and the result of bad methods and scientific dishonesty.  Real science honesty would identify the problems and discover the unreliable information, and the studies would not be published.
The reports of this or that new breakthrough should be assessed with care by the public and medical professionals.
In 2005, an obscure Greek physician, John Ioannidis, published a groundbreaking article  on the unreliability of medical research, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” and he became famous — so famous that he is now at Stanford, heading a study project on scientific integrity, funded by a philanthropist.  What Ioannidis found was that medical research is driven by ambition, intellectual passion, and fallacious thinking.  He didn’t say researchers are dishonest; he just said they often put out false claims and make false assertions.
I have, in these articles at AT, tried to warn the readers of the problems of dishonesty and malfeasance in medical research — the lay reader is warned to apply these rules as a way to avoid being taken in by bad research methods or just plain cheating and dishonesty.
There are some basic rules to help avoid being taken in by charlatans.

  1. The study should be a human study, or, if it is an animal study, the limits of such a study should be declared.
  2. The study should follow basic rules about how to determine causation, and avoid the trap of claiming that “association” or “coincidence” is proof of causation.
  3. The study should avoid surveys and questionnaires as a source of “evidence” since recall bias is always a problem in survey or response studies.
  4. The study should always be measured in terms of the magnitude of the “effect,” and the rule is that magnitude of effect should be “robust” — at least 2 or 3 times the increase in effect over the baseline.
  5. The study should establish a mechanism to explain the causal effect asserted — for example, ice cream consumption is associated with an increase in drowning deaths, but it is not a cause of those deaths.
  6. Although I could argue that peer review and publication are not a good standard for reliability, the source of the research and the reputation of that source as well as the reputation of the journal the research was published in is often worth something.  How much it is worth is the question.

The important thing is that professionals and citizens should be careful to question and evaluate what is pronounced by medical journals.  Too often, they are overwhelmed by self-esteem and ambition.






  

Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum