This is a continuation of my prior post reviewing this paper from JAMA on RCT (Randomized Clinical Trials) This paper is a greater critique of the medical-scientific establishment than what Dr. Hyman reported. The JAMA paper questions the ability of medical scientists to interpret the data, report results and honest conclusions of RCT (Randomized Clinical Trials) in what the article calls spin. Yes SPIN! (aka distortions in case one needs spoon-feeding). And further if more spoon-feeding is needed, the same critiques apply to the papers' peer reviewers that approved the paper for publication; instead of picking up the weaknesses the JAMA article raises. I shared the JAMA paper with my colleague. He remarked, "Why are we wasting our time reading these medical journals?" Santosh's characterizations is his usual distortions and smear of Dr. Hyman and his paper. OR more likely his comments may be INABILITY on his part to read and understand what is written. His comments on this paper suggest a need of spoon-feeding by the authors. As per the JAMA article SPIN is defined as "use of specific reporting strategies from whatever motive to highlight that the experimental treatment is beneficial, despite a non-statistical non-significant difference or the primary outcome, or to distract the reader from statically non-significant results" Here are the summarized results from the Conclusions of the paper: "Of the 616 published reports of RCT in 2006, 72 were eligible and appraised" 18 percent of published reports had spin in the Title. 37.5 percent had reported spin in the Results. 58 percent had reported spin in the Conclusions. A third of all articles had spin in Results, Discussion and Conclusions. And 40 percent had spin in two of the three areas.
In Conclusion, THE PAPER REPORTS (not Dr. Hyman or me) "the reporting and interpretation of findings was frequently inconsistent with the results." Now Santosh should not abuse and smear the authors of this paper and claim he does not understand their methodologies, bio-statistical analysis, interpretations, etc. To spoon feed, stop dropping technical words, to impress us that you are an expert about what you are talking. As a friend who I respect, the reality is you do not know what you are talking when it comes to clinical medicine. Stop pretending you are an expert physician or scientist. You can fool the "blind" on Goanet and your devoted followers - read side-kicks. There is a lot to improve in science of Medicine. Dr. Mark Hyman in his article medical "Science for sale" should be complemented for writing and surfacing some serious issues. As far as Santosh's unrelated side-reference on my interest in history, I do not claim to be an expert in that field. Yet I certainly have far more interest and knowledge in the field than him. So I am happy and thank him and others for reading my weekly write-up entitled Europe and Inquisition. Hopefully, now that we have some background on the subject, future references to this topic of Inquisition on Goanet will shed more light than heat. I repeat once again. We have no time to chase Santosh's bogus "Copy and Paste" references. He has got to do his own home-work more diligently before wasting our time. Regarding his suggestion that I should not write about history, perhaps he should take his own advice and stick to his field of animal experiments. On my part I will keep Dilbert's dictum in mind regarding dealing with idiots; and further not be bothered by smears, distortions and bogus comments. Santosh should try writing his own scientific papers or at-least original goanet posts, without the trademark 'Copy and Paste'; instead of being an expert at demonizing other peoples' writings. Regards, GL
