Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Dr John Campbell on the illusion of evidence-based medicine


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

ES58, I wondered when that part would b e recognised. KF kairosfocus
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
Seversky, what is the basis of any ethics? It seems the worldview of the leaders of the world is population decline/sterilization. zweston
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. jerry
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? Seversky
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 kairosfocus
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. jerry
Why are you highlighting the views of Dr Campbell and not, at least for balance, the following?
Here we go again: Is evidence-based medicine an “illusion”? […] First of all, evidence-based medicine was not a “new concept” three decades ago (which, ironically, was around about the time that—if you believe his account—Dr. Malone was supposedly busily inventing mRNA vaccines). The evidence-based medicine movement did, however, most definitely popularize it, as can be seen by the exponential increase in usage of the term in publications during the 1990s. The way I look at it is that “EBM” was a new term coined to describe and codify a concept that had been discussed since at least the 1960s, if not earlier. It worked, too. Evidence-based medicine is the gold standard of how we as physicians seek to practice medicine and surgery. […] In any event, we who promote science- and evidence-based medicine are far from oblivious to the misdeeds of pharmaceutical companies. We also often note the disconnect between how often quacks promote pharmaceutical products like ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine without evidence (off-label uses that pharmaceutical companies could have promoted to make lots of money), while damning pharmaceutical drugs that actually work. […] This brings me back to Dr. Malone, who, ironically, uses the desire to misuse data to argue for data transparency, although obviously he would not admit that that’s what he’s doing:
US government employees also control the narrative. Take for example the use of the media, CDC and the FDA to control the narrative about early treatment for COVID-19. By now we should all know about the corruption of the early clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine. On the basis of these faked studies, one of the safest drugs in the world was recommended to not be used in an out patient setting – most likely, in order to increase vaccine acceptance. Or how our government used propaganda to control the use of ivermectin by such tactics as calling it unfit for human use and labelling it as a “horse wormer.” All indications are that these efforts by the US government were to dissuade early treatment to stop vaccine hesitancy.
I bet you can guess which “early clinical trial” of hydroxychloroquine to which Dr. Malone is referring. Yes, it’s the Surgisphere trial, which reported serious adverse events associated with hydroxychloroquine but was later found to have been likely impossible based on what was claimed. It was indeed a debacle, but the retraction of that study did not, contrary to what Dr. Malone seems to be implying, mean that hydroxychloroquine actually worked against COVID-19. It doesn’t. Similarly, ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine that clinical trials still hasn’t seemed able to kill. It’s actually an interesting example, given that greater data transparency would likely have undercover the incompetently poor design of some studies and the apparent outright fraud of the “positive” randomized trials for the drug. Amusingly, Dr. Malone might not like greater data transparency when it comes to his favored COVID-19 quackery.
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? Seversky
Dr John Campbell on the illusion of evidence-based medicine kairosfocus

Leave a Reply