Being able to scale up testing remains a total disaster;
Without testing, fundamental Qs remain unknown,
Sad and honestly embarrassing for such a great nation
No number of medical reversals and no history book will ever convince many that the harms of just giving things can easily outweigh benefits. Sad!
Awful, bias susceptible endpoints
Too large a sample
Too small a sample
Duplicative and redundant trials
Trials not proportionate to scientific promise
We also love to say things like "appears promising"; "a clue"; "may"; "might" "could" ... to absolve us of our faith in these crap papers
Forget everything you know about the vent, blood thinners
We don't realize that such claims are HIGHLY provocative and requires a lot of data
Instead, our experts just change institutional guidelines willy-nilly
Craving the same, sad TV fame.
Basically reading the newspaper one day and tweeting about it the next.
Changing their twitter bios. lol.
the louder some shout
"The science says..."
"90 studies show..."
Creating a hostile atmosphere for those who disagree.
Go back and look at how many studies support some now debunked claims. It can exceed 5k!
instead, as @drjohnm and others have observed, I observe there is too much pre-occupation with silencing them.
Is it not possible they just disagree?
Do we ask ourselves our motivations simply because we have reached a different conclusion?
"Would you be randomized"
yes, of course
"Would you want your loved one randomized"
"What if it is dire"
All the more
"But it can't hurt"
They made a prediction based on what actually occurred and observed outcomes are outside all uncertainty or confidence intervals. They are not 'wrong' b/c things worked as intended. They failed to predict outcomes