Ah, okay - I read that wrong, then.
Basic points stand though, I think.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Sort: Trending
Well according to the studies, that drug should work.
And it did for a while. And then it stopped working.
Which raises a different curiosity for me about the efficacy of studies and reviews. Which is not a discussion I intended to have here, but it has emerged organically so I’m going to go with it...
Preface this by saying that in my professional days used to be knew-deep in reading studies and systematic reviews and may as well lived in the Cochrane Library 🥴.
In studies for drug efficacy, there are always a number who don’t respond to a drug. That doesn’t make the drug useless, nor can it be said that a drug is the answer or magic bullet.
Similarly, a study could show a drug to be efficacious on only a small cohort... in which case it’s deemed as not effective (and most likely not profitable... and that’s a whole different conversation there).
But what about that 2% (or whatever) that did find it effective?
I guess in the CM paradigm, the language is clear and specific: this Medicine is effective for these people, that Medicine is effective for those people. It is presupposed that there is no single solution for a diverse range of clinical manifestations.
While we can remove ‘confounders’ in the laboratory, we can never really remove them from real life. So why don’t we develop a science around the Uncertainty Principle (in health/medicine at least; I think other branches of Science are onto it from what I can tell).
But I guess this is where the ‘profitability’ discussion enters stage right....
Posted using Partiko iOS