On Mon,
11 Apr 2011 21:47:56 -0700, Santosh Helekar wrote
:<<< This appears to imply that the person
who criticizes, condemns and complains about
mainstream medical publications on Goanet is a fool. A person who merely copies
and pastes links to such articles without reading them, or the references in
them, as is the case here by self-admission, must be worse. Cheers,
Santosh>>>




On Tue, 12 Apr 2011 03:19:26 -0700, George Pinto wrote
:<<< May I kindly request
Gilbert to take a positive approach and discuss medical articles by real 
medical publications and not some non-peer
reviewed website. George>>>

 

COMMENT : It is correct beyond doubt what Gilbert quoted:
<<Quote: Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools
do.>> as is seen by the above two criticisms, condemnations &
complaints. 

A forum can discuss issues only when one is able to see an issue
from all angles, and by not having an unilateral view. That is known as
rationalism. The facts about frauds or lies in medical publication is not a
fiction as one is made to conclude from the above two criticism.

In medical research, time and again the very real and traditional
mechanisms for the preservation of errors trump those more elusive ones for
their self-correction, despite some recent attempts to make medicine now
allegedly "evidence-based" (even though it was supposed to have been
based on scientific evidence all along). 

Medical evidence is difficult to verify and validate because it is
easy to fake or cloak data from clinical trials. These are reported under the
honour system, and peer reviewers or readers are unlikely to catch clever
manipulations or fudging.  The
potential for introducing flawed data into the doctrine is therefore high. And
when people speak openly about it, here we hear: “non-peer reviewed websites”.
Maybe even news by the Fourth estate require to be peer reviewed by such
sceptics.

 

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/et-cetera/us-grapples-with-scientific-research-frauds/articleshow/3147054.cms

 

 

http://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2010/10/18/jme.2010.038125.abstract

 

 




Dr. Ferdinando dos Reis Falcão.

                                          

Reply via email to