Can medical statisticians do anything other than make derogatory comments about altmed therpies?
I think the biggest issue is that scientists who provided information which tends to go against corporate interests tend to get persecuted. In a large part this is because corporate interests fund a large part of medical school/research facilities budgets, and obviously they will not pay for things which shoot them in the foot. Accordingly, the administration of the school frowns upon researchers who infringe upon their budget. Essentially, the dillema of private funding appears; objective research becomes second to protecting funds. There are very few people who would choose what’s morally right to do if it meant their money was threatened (sad but true). The way medical statistics are set up, almost any point can be argued, and with a sufficient push behind the research, any belief can be regarded as fact. In reality this means its very common for a (insert negative expletive) drug to be approved despite it having a neglible effect above that of a placebo and numerous nasty side effe
Can medical statisticians do anything other than make derogatory comments about altmed therpies?