noqcks
Member
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2020
- Messages
- 108
I discovered a great YouTube video reviewing some of the problems with modern science.
Replicability crisis, vested corporate interests and perverse incentive structures, salami-slicing data (p-hacking)
He says modern medical science is finance-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine. Love that term.
I also found out that the speaker was highly critical of the Coronavirus response and got huge pushback from fellow scientists on his views.
"In mid-March, the Stanford University scientist John Ioannidis wrote a short, viral essay for STAT arguing that the global response to the Covid-19 pandemic could be “a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.” Without more data about the virus’s spread, Ioannidis, a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health, argued, the lockdowns in place in much of the world may not be justified. Covid-19 infections could be more widespread, and less lethal, than many experts feared."
"Well, let's go back and check the exact announcement. [Note: The WHO announcement in question, from early March, specifies that “3.4 percent of reported cases have died.”] That was at the time when WHO had sent an envoy to China. And [the WHO envoy] came back and he said there's no asymptomatic cases. Just go back and see what the statement was. He said there's hardly any asymptomatic cases, it's very serious and has a case fatality of 3.4 percent.
Of course, that [fatality rate] was gradually dialed back to 1 percent or 0.9 percent. And these are the numbers that went into calculations, and these are the numbers that are still in many of the calculations, you know, until very recently.
You know, 1 percent is, is probably like the disaster case, maybe in some places in Queens, for example, it may be 1 percent, because you have all that perfect storm of nursing homes, and nosocomial infection [an infection that originates in a hospital], and no hospital system functioning. In many other places, it's much, much lower."
John Ioannidis Responds to Critics of His Study Finding That the Coronavirus Is Not as Deadly as Thought | RealClearScience
My Notes from the video:
Replicability crisis, vested corporate interests and perverse incentive structures, salami-slicing data (p-hacking)
He says modern medical science is finance-based medicine rather than evidence-based medicine. Love that term.
I also found out that the speaker was highly critical of the Coronavirus response and got huge pushback from fellow scientists on his views.
"In mid-March, the Stanford University scientist John Ioannidis wrote a short, viral essay for STAT arguing that the global response to the Covid-19 pandemic could be “a once-in-a-century evidence fiasco.” Without more data about the virus’s spread, Ioannidis, a professor of medicine, epidemiology, and population health, argued, the lockdowns in place in much of the world may not be justified. Covid-19 infections could be more widespread, and less lethal, than many experts feared."
"Well, let's go back and check the exact announcement. [Note: The WHO announcement in question, from early March, specifies that “3.4 percent of reported cases have died.”] That was at the time when WHO had sent an envoy to China. And [the WHO envoy] came back and he said there's no asymptomatic cases. Just go back and see what the statement was. He said there's hardly any asymptomatic cases, it's very serious and has a case fatality of 3.4 percent.
Of course, that [fatality rate] was gradually dialed back to 1 percent or 0.9 percent. And these are the numbers that went into calculations, and these are the numbers that are still in many of the calculations, you know, until very recently.
You know, 1 percent is, is probably like the disaster case, maybe in some places in Queens, for example, it may be 1 percent, because you have all that perfect storm of nursing homes, and nosocomial infection [an infection that originates in a hospital], and no hospital system functioning. In many other places, it's much, much lower."
John Ioannidis Responds to Critics of His Study Finding That the Coronavirus Is Not as Deadly as Thought | RealClearScience
My Notes from the video:
- Of 1394 systematic reviews published in the Cochrane database from Jan 2013 to June 2014, only 25 had both a significant result and a favorable interpretation of the medical intervention. Most papers have no evidence or weak evidence according to the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the GRADE system.
- Of papers that have reached 1,000 citations, are well known in industry and have had support in policy and practice, about 40% of the time subsequent studies that are better controlled and with larger sample sizes come to prove the original paper was not significant.
- Clinical trials are often just auto-loops of corporate interest. The lines between corporations in the image below shows when they have both funded a single study (i.e comparing drugs). Industry does not want to compare their drugs.
- Meta-analyses including an author who were employees of the manufacturer of the assessed drug were 22-times less likely to have negative statements about the drug vs other meta-analyses.
