Thread by @jessesingal

1/ The Cass Review explains, in detail, why we need to trust systematic reviews over both doctors' anecdotal evidence and low-quality standards published by professional associations. The CBC responds by publishing an article that cites professional associations and is dominated by doctors' anecdotal accounts.

Science journalism seems screwed at the moment.

cbc.ca/news/health/pu…

2/ This might be the worst bit:

"Surveys and interviews are considered low-quality evidence in medicine, said [Pediatrician Dr. Tehseen Ladha], but that might be misleading to the general public. 'Many people would see low-quality evidence and think well, that means this could harm our children. But that's not what it means.' "

That's... exactly what low-quality evidence for a major intervention means. It means we don't know if the intervention offers a net benefit, because the true effects might differ significantly from what the studies in question present.

3/ Stuff like this isn't just the normal incompetence and sloppiness that plagues this subject. It is critically dangerous science miscommunication disseminated by the most important outlet in Canada. It's absolutely inexcusable and has to stop.

4/ Just wanna be clear about this: Let's say "low-quality" studies seem to tell us that an intervention improves things .5 points on a 10-point scale for patients. Doesn't matter what you're measuring. What that means, to oversimplify, is that we don't have confidence the intervention in question will actually have that effect on people. It could be higher, but it could be lower, changing the direction of the sign entirely.

I'd argue more structural forces within science publishing nudge us toward overstating rather than understating benefits, but whether or not you agree, the idea of this intervention being harmful is *absolutely* on the table in this sort of situation. The CBC is spreading rank BS here -- it's so, so bad. I don't understand how this keeps happening.