3 ms·

> My skepticism was founded entirely on seeing who was promoting this idea The proponent has no effect on the null hypothesis. What was needed was a RCT: no re

• dougmwne 6y ago
  I disagree from a statistical point of view. Of all possible hypothesis we choose to study, for the great majority we will fail to reject the null hypothesis. (For most things we study, we will find the treatment has no discernible effect.) If some unstudied hypothesis is being promoted at random by vested interests, the chance that it is in fact an effective treatment is low because most treatments we would try are ineffective. And a vested interest will use every rhetorical tool at its disposal to promote what it is selling, including citing studies and scientists. If those do not exist or seem low-quality then skepticism is warranted. We should be wary of all medical claims till they are supported by high quality evidence.
• take_a_breath 6y ago
  If the snake oil salesman presents a new, improved brand of snake oil, skepticism is wise.
  • fat_turdsicle 6y ago
    The salesman being the medical establishment, and the new improved snake oil being Remdesivir? I read you loud and clear, buddy.
• maxerickson 6y ago
  You are describing a decision making framework with no real world applicability. Like, how do we decide which things to study with RCTs? We ask experts...