Exactly. The raw data is almost never available, which is what makes it ironically NOT science. Science is about repeatability of results by outside third parties multiple times. When has this happened before approval of a profitable product in the medical industry? The comments section the NJEM is so upsetting to read, I generally canno…
Exactly. The raw data is almost never available, which is what makes it ironically NOT science. Science is about repeatability of results by outside third parties multiple times. When has this happened before approval of a profitable product in the medical industry? The comments section the NJEM is so upsetting to read, I generally cannot because it is so dissonant with the study. And the things they study are often rather non-relevant compared to what impacts most people's lives and what they could be studying if the goal was health, wellness for all. I think there scientists who try to do their best within the system just as their are pharmacists who do their best within the system, but as far as I can tell all the journals have the mob either at the back or literally backing them. I think the British Medical Journal has the best leadership within the last ten years and manages to publish some good things along with some party-line stuff.
If someone wanted to create some legislation, it would make "proprietary" not legally applicable to products that can be prescribed or mandated and would make it a criminal sin with obligatory jail time to put shareholder interest before safety and transparency around efficacy would be a legal obligation, including providing accessible, reader-friendly yet accurate materials to providers that they would in turn be necessitated to offer to patients.
Exactly. The raw data is almost never available, which is what makes it ironically NOT science. Science is about repeatability of results by outside third parties multiple times. When has this happened before approval of a profitable product in the medical industry? The comments section the NJEM is so upsetting to read, I generally cannot because it is so dissonant with the study. And the things they study are often rather non-relevant compared to what impacts most people's lives and what they could be studying if the goal was health, wellness for all. I think there scientists who try to do their best within the system just as their are pharmacists who do their best within the system, but as far as I can tell all the journals have the mob either at the back or literally backing them. I think the British Medical Journal has the best leadership within the last ten years and manages to publish some good things along with some party-line stuff.
If someone wanted to create some legislation, it would make "proprietary" not legally applicable to products that can be prescribed or mandated and would make it a criminal sin with obligatory jail time to put shareholder interest before safety and transparency around efficacy would be a legal obligation, including providing accessible, reader-friendly yet accurate materials to providers that they would in turn be necessitated to offer to patients.