Ini lho yang Namanya Bowo, Artis Tik Tok Viral yang Adakan Meet & Greet dengan Penggemarnya. Tetew

No one should approach the temple of science with the soul of a money changer. ~Thomas Browne A lawyers' job is to win for his side no matter what the facts. A doctor needs to know what the facts are before he chooses a side. This is why lawyers make bad doctors/scientists, and doctors make bad politicians. This fundamental difference in thinking underlies the problems with health care reform, and underscores why it is just as important to know who is making the argument as the argument they are making. Scientific papers and the policies they support are hard enough to evaluate without additional bias from the presenter. The long and emotionally wrenching article in the NYT underscores just how hard it is to do good experiments. The author gives a rare insight into the astonishingly arcane complexity of performing one such definitive study to evaluate the utility of a new melanoma drug. The need for double-blinded, comparison studies with many subjects receiving different treatments is examined with a degree of detail not usually found in the lay press. This particular study raises ethical concerns about denying some patients remarkably beneficial drug that is being evaluated. The authors do great job presenting the unusual moral dilemmas raised by this particular trial, and I won't explore that further. Policy makers, Congress, and the average American need to appreciate the extraordinary effort required to arrive at the truth. Scores of doctors, nurses, statisticians, many Universities, hundreds of patients, thousands of man-hours, and elegant study designs rigorously formulated by years of experience are required for a drug that clearly works. Learning how to evaluate or run such a study takes many years of post-doctoral training. Costs can run into the millions of dollars, and results are still not always clear. These subtleties are not appreciated by the press, politicians or lay public. The medical literature is bombarded on the periphery by poorly designed, non-definitive studies performed or financed by advocates and published in non-reviewed or foreign journals. The benefits or complications of a new drug, supplement, medical device or herb are heralded and used by zealots with unrevealed conflicts to sell a product or bash a treatment. The claims may be completely true, but that is not the same as scientific proof. The problem is that under Obamacare, the decisions about what therapy, treatments, devices, drugs, and tests allowed will be made by lawyers, insurance executives and lay advocates who don't have the experience or understanding to differentiate between real science and the questionable. Jenny McCarthy and the anti-vaxers, raw food zealots, and radical anti-genetic modification groups are the most extreme examples, but many of the "preventive medicine" provisions of Obamacare were supported by lay advocates relying on wishful thinking and poor science. Recent articles about mammography and prostate screening address this issue, a subject for future postings. When evaluating a study there are a few helpful rules of thumb that can help you spot trouble 1) Does the advocate have a financial stake in the outcome of the study and do they disclose it? Are they trying to sell you something? 2) Does the author have an underlying political, religious, social or financial agenda, and does he accept literature contrary to his beliefs? 3) In the study published in a peer reviewed US or English journal? 4) Are the claims being made supported by the evidence, and is the study done is such a way as the claims could be disproved? 5) Was the author or advocate trained in the field, or is his degree from some other discipline? Some things in medicine still need to be left to the doctors.