For the past two years, we have been concerned that medical practice and pandemic management have been skewed by selective hyperskepticism and bias. Dr Campbell speaks out, based on the recent paper:
We can look at a screen shot, where he targets domination of medical drug approvals by big pharma:
Earlier, he expressed concern about how integrity of the science could be compromised, as is now exposed due to Freedom of Information requests:
The obvious issue of special interest agendas leads to the issue of regulatory capture. Wikipedia (an example itself of ideological agenda capture) outlines:
In politics, regulatory capture (also agency capture and client politics) is a form of corruption of authority that occurs when a political entity, policymaker, or regulator is co-opted to serve the commercial, ideological, or political interests of a minor constituency, such as a particular geographic area, industry, profession, or ideological group When regulatory capture occurs, a special interest is prioritized over the general interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society. The theory of client politics is related to that of rent-seeking and political failure; client politics “occurs when most or all of the benefits of a program go to some single, reasonably small interest (e.g., industry, profession, or locality) but most or all of the costs will be borne by a large number of people (for example, all taxpayers)”.
Such capture will distort the market, scientific research connected to medicine, the practice of medicine, medical and general education, the media and more. So, it is a particularly pernicious and often subtle form of corruption.
More broadly, this also means that we cannot blindly or naively trust the official line and its claims regarding best medical practice. Hence, some of the controversies surrounding Ivermectin etc, repurposed drugs that are known to be safe enough and which because of evidence of various kinds have been used to treat other ailments than what such were originally approved for. In the case of Ivermectin, we now know or should know that contrasting population level results in Uttar Pradesh vs Israel, the UK and the US show that it is indeed successful in treating Covid-19.
As there was a needless controversy over what was being used in that 240+ million population state, we may examine a snapshot of a home kit:
We may broaden our concerns yet further. For, if there is a breakdown of integrity for something so manifestly vital as medicine, we can take it to the bank that the rot has spread far and wide: ideologies, interests, dirty money, activism and agendas are unduly affecting what we think we know or imagine is wise, good or advisable, on any number of subjects.
Arguably, that includes on study of origins.
We must return to first principles and duties of reason, to begin to reform and restructure knowledge, thus how we make and carry forward key decisions as individuals, in families, groups, organisations and communities. That’s hard to do and will be fought by those with undue influence, but it needs to be done. END
Dr John Campbell on the illusion of evidence-based medicine
Why are you highlighting the views of Dr Campbell and not, at least for balance, the following?
So, if you and Dr Campbell reject EBM as an “illusion”, with what do you suggest we replace it as a way of deciding which therapeutic agents work and which don’t? Astrology? Crystal balls? Reading tea-leaves?
How about facts.
They don’t seem to mean anything to you but they do to most of us.
By the way you quoted the same quack you did the other day on Zelenko. He lost all credibility with that post. If you want to debate something, then stay around for an actually discussion.
Otherwise everything you say has to be considered nonsense.
Sev, what is so hard to grasp about regulatory capture? Technoplutocratic domination can be unpacked: technology + big money ruling. Instead, what about respect for data, inductive logic in the modern sense and cumulative evidence? KF
Pharmaceutical companies have behaved unethically and we can be reasonably certain that there are corrupt doctors, scientists and politicians out there but that is not the same as a monolithic global conspiracy pursuing whatever nefarious worldwide strategy you suspect. In fact, I believe you will find the same failings in any large population of humans including churches. But none of this speaks to the question of, if you abandon evidence-based medicine and science, what do you propose putting in its place?
Who is proposing to abandon evidence medicine?
It’s just not practiced when political or financial interests are at stake. Unfortunately both dominate government policy.
For example, Trump was powerless to get an effective strategy implemented to handle C19. The election was coming and he was blackmailed by Fauci, Birx and Redfield into massive shutdowns and restrictions that were dysfunctional.
Seversky, what is the basis of any ethics? It seems the worldview of the leaders of the world is population decline/sterilization.
The “views of Dr Campbell”? He’s presenting the contents of a peer reviewed paper in British medical journal – that’s not *his* opinion.
ES58, I wondered when that part would b e recognised. KF