The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
it is imperative I simply say it to argue that we have to be able to go beyond randomized control trials in humans that are at the gold standard if we want to get past medicine 2.0 and one of the ideas in medicine 3.0 is the idea that we have to be able to rely on not just evidence-based medicine which falls into this but also evidence informed medicine
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
I simply say it to argue that we have to be able to go beyond randomized control trials in humans that are at the gold standard if we want to get past medicine 2.0 and one of the ideas in medicine 3.0 is the idea that we have to be able to rely on not just evidence-based medicine which falls into this but also evidence informed medicine we have to be able to extrapolate intelligently from what we know from rcts we have to be able to also maybe include what we've learned in cross species experiments we have to be able to impute intelligently What We Gather from biomarkers or indications around specific diseases and what we know about that disease relative to all cause mortality