I think I have an idea for a thrilling new Netappleux series 'Slow Geezers' starring two down at heel epidemiological medical sleuths determined to root out corruption and dastardly fibbing! A surefire hit!! Now,who to publish the book version , Wiley perhaps??
Looks like there is some speedy reading going on at TTE hq!
I suggested looking at naltrexone for alcohol abuse not obesity. I said it poses similar questions to obesity drugs - as it targets something many feel should be achieved through willpower.
Nor did I mention zimzum megablockbusters (?). But I did wonder if TTE could ever see themselves approving of any new medical intervention. Saying that the history of obesity drugs shows failures/side effects etc is not a great argument. Many of these treatments, I assume, were amphetamine-type substances whose mechanism of action was entirely different to Ozempic. Before penicillin, the history of treatments for infection was terrible. One doesn't have to be a 'great believer' to have an open mind. The problem is that if every post is a sarcastic denunciation readers like me may start to wonder how reliable they are. 'That's what they always say about everything', etc.
In a spirit of critical friendliness and appreciation.
Thanks Boyd, we did get the alcohol abuse side, but it takes a little while to get everything in context. Personally I am an agnostic. Let me explain. I do not have shares in anything (maybe my personal pension pot does, but I have no say in what they invest in) and many moons ago I decided to follow the stars instead of the light of each passing ship. This is a quote from one of WWII most underrated generals, Omar Bradley. For me following the stars means looking at the hardest possible evidence I can find to answer questions. If I cannot find answers, I do not make them up. I list the questions like we did for the pharmacokinetics of Comirnaty in post 13 of the series. The “sarcasm" is not intended to be destructive simply to keep the posts interesting or sometimes amusing (we hope). It is very difficult for me sometimes to escape the “I have seen it all before” syndrome. I have been doing EBM for 30 years and I have seen a lot, perhaps not all, but a lot. Just re-read the antivirals series and you will see how for a us doing the relevant Cochrane review was a paradigm shift.
People who constantly ask questions like we do are not popular. You only have to follow the way Carl was treated at the Hallett Inquiry when giving evidence on 19th of October 2024.
Remembering of course that we did put forward a plan for the Prime Minister to consider. The plan was aimed at minimising the social and economic butchery of lockdowns.
I think I have an idea for a thrilling new Netappleux series 'Slow Geezers' starring two down at heel epidemiological medical sleuths determined to root out corruption and dastardly fibbing! A surefire hit!! Now,who to publish the book version , Wiley perhaps??
There are 3 guarantees in this life - death, taxes and TTE readers comments 😆
Looks like there is some speedy reading going on at TTE hq!
I suggested looking at naltrexone for alcohol abuse not obesity. I said it poses similar questions to obesity drugs - as it targets something many feel should be achieved through willpower.
Nor did I mention zimzum megablockbusters (?). But I did wonder if TTE could ever see themselves approving of any new medical intervention. Saying that the history of obesity drugs shows failures/side effects etc is not a great argument. Many of these treatments, I assume, were amphetamine-type substances whose mechanism of action was entirely different to Ozempic. Before penicillin, the history of treatments for infection was terrible. One doesn't have to be a 'great believer' to have an open mind. The problem is that if every post is a sarcastic denunciation readers like me may start to wonder how reliable they are. 'That's what they always say about everything', etc.
In a spirit of critical friendliness and appreciation.
Thanks Boyd, we did get the alcohol abuse side, but it takes a little while to get everything in context. Personally I am an agnostic. Let me explain. I do not have shares in anything (maybe my personal pension pot does, but I have no say in what they invest in) and many moons ago I decided to follow the stars instead of the light of each passing ship. This is a quote from one of WWII most underrated generals, Omar Bradley. For me following the stars means looking at the hardest possible evidence I can find to answer questions. If I cannot find answers, I do not make them up. I list the questions like we did for the pharmacokinetics of Comirnaty in post 13 of the series. The “sarcasm" is not intended to be destructive simply to keep the posts interesting or sometimes amusing (we hope). It is very difficult for me sometimes to escape the “I have seen it all before” syndrome. I have been doing EBM for 30 years and I have seen a lot, perhaps not all, but a lot. Just re-read the antivirals series and you will see how for a us doing the relevant Cochrane review was a paradigm shift.
People who constantly ask questions like we do are not popular. You only have to follow the way Carl was treated at the Hallett Inquiry when giving evidence on 19th of October 2024.
See some of the excerpts here: https://open.substack.com/pub/trusttheevidence/p/wrapping-up-the-hallett-inquiry?r=1lcx51&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Remembering of course that we did put forward a plan for the Prime Minister to consider. The plan was aimed at minimising the social and economic butchery of lockdowns.
I hope this clarifies a few things.
Best, Tom.
Hear hear Sir….
We'll take a look at it