There is an interesting thread on "Doctors and
'Science'" that is being copied on ~13 other
newsgroups--I thought I might share some of the comments
from the numerous posts. I have significant difficulty
with the silicone issue & find some of these comments
interesting. (This thread was not on silicone, just
science & medicine)
----
What is proven is heavily influenced by what those with
money are willing to pay for. This makes conventional
medicine top-down.
----
We're under the gun, and so is the patient (who is not
going to live forever waiting for all the huge studies
to be done, and done so well that nobody could possibly
question the result).
----
Sadly, doctors seem the last to acknowledge their
(numerous) limitations.
----
Far too many "clinical" studies and small, biased-sample
trials use shoddy reasoning and anecdotal evidence to
come up with a method of treatment; then, an article is
published in the NEJM, and next thing you know, it's
sweeping the whole country.
----
You talk of "biased sample" trials as though it were
possible to do any other kind. Of course it isn't. One
simply hopes, based on other lines of evidence, that the
biases one has, will not affect the conclusions.
-----
The above comments are not in a particular order, or
organized by speaker--the threads are intertwined, so I
left out names.
I had someone comment to me the other day that the
problem with "???" study was that you could not figure
out if he was pro or con silicone. Isn't that the
point? It really should not matter if the study is
organized well. My main desire is to get all of your
medical brains thinking about silicone and how you might
contribute to this confusing mess.
Doctors and "Science"