Be careful about generalization.Lately wokism has contaminated medical research when it takes the charge of generalization and runs with it. For example, a study is done showing a drug works to treat hypertension. But wait. The study did not include. enough black males. The drug might not work on black males. True enough /Lets include black males. Well how about. Asians or native Americans.
How about Asians under the age of 30 or over the age of 80. How about Asians who are married over the age of 80 who live in a zip. code that is associated with poor health.
outcomes. Unemployed Asians in that group but who smoke. Or who exercise 30 minutes a day and eat. fish 4 times a week. Eventually we come to a point where each person is unique. and therefore no study of any kind can result in the knowledge that a drug will work for THAT person. THAT. person must clone himself a 1000 times to see if the drug will work ON HIM. This way of thinking about research results in data that has public health value but is useless to any single individual. Be careful going down the path of woke inclusion of groups. It leads to no where. except information about GROUPS , not individuals. Maybe that is the truth about research. If so, what does that mean to the doctor and the patient he encounters?
Example? A week or two ago Tucker Carlson offered a Lancet study as evidence that Covid-19 vaccines damaged the immune system function. He cited higher all cause death rates in the immunized group, compared to the un-vaxed group. Never any mention of selection bias or the limitations of this kind of study and conclusions. Have not found and read the Lancet article yet, so I could be off base, but the presentation by Mr. Carlson seemed to be exactly what you are referencing in Churnalism 2.
This piece is so interesting, because in his argument for COVID vaxes for children last week, Adam gave every indication that he was, in fact, unable to distinguish actual data from churnalism.
Be careful about generalization.Lately wokism has contaminated medical research when it takes the charge of generalization and runs with it. For example, a study is done showing a drug works to treat hypertension. But wait. The study did not include. enough black males. The drug might not work on black males. True enough /Lets include black males. Well how about. Asians or native Americans.
How about Asians under the age of 30 or over the age of 80. How about Asians who are married over the age of 80 who live in a zip. code that is associated with poor health.
outcomes. Unemployed Asians in that group but who smoke. Or who exercise 30 minutes a day and eat. fish 4 times a week. Eventually we come to a point where each person is unique. and therefore no study of any kind can result in the knowledge that a drug will work for THAT person. THAT. person must clone himself a 1000 times to see if the drug will work ON HIM. This way of thinking about research results in data that has public health value but is useless to any single individual. Be careful going down the path of woke inclusion of groups. It leads to no where. except information about GROUPS , not individuals. Maybe that is the truth about research. If so, what does that mean to the doctor and the patient he encounters?
Excellent article, thank you.
Looking forward to these articles.
Am soooo loving this! Thank you so much.
Thank you for this. I am contemplating how to include this in some of the courses that I teach.
Sheila
I cannot thank you enough!!!! 🇨🇦🙋🏻♀️ (I have a moral obligation to pay for your substack….upgrading today) 🥳
I got a bad case of the English Majoritis blues! Lol
Looking forward to these articles. Health is an important topic for us all and deserves quality research and accuracy in reporting.
Excellent post. Thank you.
This was one of the most interesting articles. I look forward to your emails everyday.
Looking forward to this series. Love sensible medicine so far….
Example? A week or two ago Tucker Carlson offered a Lancet study as evidence that Covid-19 vaccines damaged the immune system function. He cited higher all cause death rates in the immunized group, compared to the un-vaxed group. Never any mention of selection bias or the limitations of this kind of study and conclusions. Have not found and read the Lancet article yet, so I could be off base, but the presentation by Mr. Carlson seemed to be exactly what you are referencing in Churnalism 2.
YesApplauseYesyesYes
Excellent post. Look forward to this series.
This piece is so interesting, because in his argument for COVID vaxes for children last week, Adam gave every indication that he was, in fact, unable to distinguish actual data from churnalism.
Look forward to reading.
Please fix the typo in your header!