I'm not completely sure of what I'm saying here but the scandal likely goes all the way back to epistemology. Everyone needs their thinking corrected by its confrontation with reality. If you begin from a null hypothesis, such as presuming a new medication does not work, you are in some danger of removing that corrective factor. Perhaps I can say it like this: disproving a non-prediction through statistical significance is not science.
Have Carl and Tom seen this ,which has Hancock's fingerprints all over it,amongst NICE for heaven's sake
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/feature/inclisiran-the-extremely-unusual-influence-behind-the-novel-drugs-approval
I'm not completely sure of what I'm saying here but the scandal likely goes all the way back to epistemology. Everyone needs their thinking corrected by its confrontation with reality. If you begin from a null hypothesis, such as presuming a new medication does not work, you are in some danger of removing that corrective factor. Perhaps I can say it like this: disproving a non-prediction through statistical significance is not science.
If I'm right in my first fumblings the technical details, which i do no understand, are here: https://brokenscience.org/a-test-of-the-null-hypothesis-significance-testing-procedure-correlation-argument/
Disproving a non-prediction by _any means is not science.