-------------- Santosh wrote: I am attaching herewith the Boutron et al JAMA paper discussed by Mark Hyman in Huffington Post. People with medical background on this list, or for that matter, people with scientific background, should be able to recognize quite well that Hyman has misrepresented many methodological and technical aspects of the JAMA paper in his article. In fact, he has resorted to more spin than the targets of the paper.
***************************************************************** No offense meant. But let the chips fall where they may. --------- GL responds: Thank you for sending us this article from JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association). I perused it. As many know, America is big into RCTs (Randomized Clinical Trials). So it is interesting that the authors of this study which critically analysis RCTs are from UK (Oxford) and France (Paris). Credit goes to JAMA for accepting their paper; which also reflects the quality and detailed analysis in the study. The paper essentially is a rebuke of the medical-scientific establishment (including medical statisticians) in the USA and elsewhere. RCT is the best available methodology (to remove bias of physician and patient)in selecting the better treatment. I can give a whole lecture why the prognostic parameters used for patient randomization in RCT is inadequate at best. Hence spinning the results and conclusions of the trial is further exacerbating the issue of deciding one treatment (usually new drug) benefits over another. In my next post I will highlight the data and conclusions of the paper you have asked us to review. In the past you have accused me of being unable to read and interpret scientific-medical papers. Now you claim Dr. Hyman, "has misrepresented many methodological and technical aspects of the JAMA paper in his article. In fact, he has resorted to more spin than the targets of the paper." So here is another victim of your smear. It is nice to know that I am not the only one who is a victim of your smear, distortions and bogus comments Of late, I have noticed that quite a few of us have been checking your web-link references in your responses. Some have replied that the links are unconnected to the topic being discussed or that your quotes or interpretation of the links are incorrect. You have corrected yourself, in some posts. Frankly we have no time to chase your bogus "Copy and Paste" references. You got to do your own home-work more diligently before wasting our time. And as far as the cancer experts you quote as personal communication, I can give them my opinion if they post their views directly on Goanet instead of having you misrepresent their views as well. Analysis of JAMA paper to follow. Regards, GL
