It seems to me that the vast amount of published research, including trials of medical interventions is excessive compared with the possible benefits. An anology with the arts is useful. When socialist governments decide to promote and support talented artists, the result is invariably the production of vast quantities of worthless paintings, music etc by people awarded funding by government bureaucrats. In the good old days, artists were rewarded by patrons in a free market, without government interference, and the result was that the Shakespeares, Rembrandts and the Beethovens rose to the position justified by their talents and achievements. The same principle applies in medical science and science in general. Government funding = bureaucratic government control = destruction of creative endeavour. Cochrane's job would be much simpler if there was less research, and research of higher quality. Not much is gained by having to review mountains of poor quality studies.
Maybe the solution could be to bring the two of you and join the dissidents from Cochrane Collaboration such as Peter Gotze and fund the "Trust the Evidence Collaboration".
The scientific world would be better!
Anyway, with TTE we are already much better than with nothing.
Thank you for this account of what happened "behind the sceens" at Cochrane over the past few years. It puts things into context and allows the initiated some understanding.
I would like to emphasise this passage:
"In 2018, Peter Gøtzsche ...lost his Cochrane membership. Why? "He pointed out the organisation’s shift towards a commercial business model approach, away from its true roots of independent, scientific analysis and open public debate.”
I think I sence the hand of pharma here acting through journalists and influencers. Or am I just a conspiracy theorist?
A thorough explanation of the missing piece to the jigsaw puzzle….adverse events post use of medicines. Four yrs on from the administration of the first mRNA covid jabs. Britain is on jab # 9. It does not take a drug developer, nor scientist, nor doctor to witness the adverse events of these jabs. The only people interested in studying the adverse effects of the mRNA jabs have been punished by medical boards, msm, their fellow physicians. Many of these brave doctors have taken cover. We hardly hear a peep from them. It is too dangerous.
tom and carl, in light of the above would you consider looking at naltrexone (and its sibling nalmefene) for alcohol abuse?
poses similar questions to ozempic perhaps
while i'm a big fan of your work, i do also sometimes wonder if you guys have a default position opposed to any and all new drugs. to me the new obesity drugs do seem to have great potential to improve health. they may well have side effects but so does obesity!
and alcohol abuse is even worse, and so difficult for people to escape. anyway - i'd love to hear what you think.
It seems to me that the vast amount of published research, including trials of medical interventions is excessive compared with the possible benefits. An anology with the arts is useful. When socialist governments decide to promote and support talented artists, the result is invariably the production of vast quantities of worthless paintings, music etc by people awarded funding by government bureaucrats. In the good old days, artists were rewarded by patrons in a free market, without government interference, and the result was that the Shakespeares, Rembrandts and the Beethovens rose to the position justified by their talents and achievements. The same principle applies in medical science and science in general. Government funding = bureaucratic government control = destruction of creative endeavour. Cochrane's job would be much simpler if there was less research, and research of higher quality. Not much is gained by having to review mountains of poor quality studies.
Maybe the solution could be to bring the two of you and join the dissidents from Cochrane Collaboration such as Peter Gotze and fund the "Trust the Evidence Collaboration".
The scientific world would be better!
Anyway, with TTE we are already much better than with nothing.
*Peter Gotzsche
Thank you for this account of what happened "behind the sceens" at Cochrane over the past few years. It puts things into context and allows the initiated some understanding.
I would like to emphasise this passage:
"In 2018, Peter Gøtzsche ...lost his Cochrane membership. Why? "He pointed out the organisation’s shift towards a commercial business model approach, away from its true roots of independent, scientific analysis and open public debate.”
I think I sence the hand of pharma here acting through journalists and influencers. Or am I just a conspiracy theorist?
“identifying pharmaceuticals, biologics, and devices that could genuinely be worth investing in and benefit society.”
This sentence popped out at me and I wondered if you’d compiled such a list or written about it.
A thorough explanation of the missing piece to the jigsaw puzzle….adverse events post use of medicines. Four yrs on from the administration of the first mRNA covid jabs. Britain is on jab # 9. It does not take a drug developer, nor scientist, nor doctor to witness the adverse events of these jabs. The only people interested in studying the adverse effects of the mRNA jabs have been punished by medical boards, msm, their fellow physicians. Many of these brave doctors have taken cover. We hardly hear a peep from them. It is too dangerous.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/diet/alcohol/naltrexone-alcohol-pill/
tom and carl, in light of the above would you consider looking at naltrexone (and its sibling nalmefene) for alcohol abuse?
poses similar questions to ozempic perhaps
while i'm a big fan of your work, i do also sometimes wonder if you guys have a default position opposed to any and all new drugs. to me the new obesity drugs do seem to have great potential to improve health. they may well have side effects but so does obesity!
and alcohol abuse is even worse, and so difficult for people to escape. anyway - i'd love to hear what you think.