3 ms·

> Any clinical intervention is going to have advocates. Honestly I don't really get this at all. Not even a little bit. Why? Anyone who actually has a motive (

> Any clinical intervention is going to have advocates. Honestly I don't really get this at all. Not even a little bit. Why? Anyone who actually has a motive (like a company trying to make money) should be kept far away from the regulators that oversee the study, and the whole point of double blind trials is to keep self interested bias away from the result of a study where lives are literally at stake. Isn't the point of a clinical intervention to save lives? Either the intervention saves lives or it doesn't. The researchers should be selected from people who can maintain a neutral viewpoint. If that is impossible their neutrality should still be maximized and biases should be eliminated as much as humanly possible. Simply accepting that bias as a matter of course is imo the worst way to approach it.

ColanR 6y ago
>> Any clinical intervention is going to have advocates. > Honestly I don't really get this at all. Not even a little bit. It's ok for scientists to think something's true before they have all the evidence lined up - especially in a predominantly empirical field like medicine. That's how new ideas happen. Have you ever encountered someone who is motivated by altruism? Someone who is motivated by getting the truth out there?
- hindsightbias 6y ago
  Lots of QAnon advocates see themselves as altruistic truth seekers. Doctors and scientists need to be objective. Advocating a treatment before the data is there, or cherry picking results is not science.
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  I think that it's important to distinguish between thinking "X is true" is probably true and being "pro-X". Especially when we are talking about medical treatments that can affect the decisions someone will make with respect to their health and possibly even risk their lives. Certainly a scientist can say "I very much hope that HCQ is an effective cure for Coronavirus" but that is very, very different from being "Pro-HCQ". When I hear "Pro-HCQ" that implies to me a very strong suggestion of treatment, i.e. - "You should take HCQ as a treatment for Coronavirus infection", which is extremely different from, "I hope that the research shows that HCQ will be an effective treatment for Coronavirus, and I am doing a study with the goal of showing that this is the case". Does that make sense?
  - ColanR 6y ago
    I think you're leaving out a middle option, which is what I see when I read 'pro-HCQ' - a scientist who thinks we should further investigate HCQ (etc.) as a treatment option. Not someone who thinks it should be used as treatment, not someone who hopes the particular treatment turns out to be effective. I think that middle option is actually how a scientist would interpret the phrase. I can see why a layman would read it otherwise, though.
thebean11 6y ago
> Anyone who actually has a motive (like a company trying to make money) should be kept far away from the regulators that oversee the study > Isn't the point of a clinical intervention to save lives? Why do you think saving lives can't be the motive? If you do a study, and conclude based on that study that a treatment works, you're supposed to remain "neutral"? Let me put it this way, I wouldn't want to receive treatment from a healthcare provider who is "neutral" about the surgery they are about to give me, I want them to have a positive informed opinion based on experience, studies, etc.
- landryraccoon 6y ago
  Your doctor should not be acting as a researcher with you as a laboratory. They are taking a biased position in favor of you as a patient and should provide the best possible standard of care. A scientific researcher is trying to answer an unanswered question dispassionately. I don’t see how taking a bias in testing a scientific hypothesis can possibly determine the truth of a scientific fact. Are researchers who say that applying leeches won’t cure cancer bad for cancer patients? Why shouldn’t they be hopeful that leeches cure terminal cancer, rather than being downers? The answer is that cancer is the enemy, not people who oppose medical treatments that don’t work.

ColanR 6y ago

>> Any clinical intervention is going to have advocates. > Honestly I don't really get this at all. Not even a little bit. It's ok for scientists to think something's true before they have all the evidence lined up - especially in a predominantly empirical field like medicine. That's how new ideas happen. Have you ever encountered someone who is motivated by altruism? Someone who is motivated by getting the truth out there?

hindsightbias 6y ago
Lots of QAnon advocates see themselves as altruistic truth seekers. Doctors and scientists need to be objective. Advocating a treatment before the data is there, or cherry picking results is not science.
landryraccoon 6y ago
I think that it's important to distinguish between thinking "X is true" is probably true and being "pro-X". Especially when we are talking about medical treatments that can affect the decisions someone will make with respect to their health and possibly even risk their lives. Certainly a scientist can say "I very much hope that HCQ is an effective cure for Coronavirus" but that is very, very different from being "Pro-HCQ". When I hear "Pro-HCQ" that implies to me a very strong suggestion of treatment, i.e. - "You should take HCQ as a treatment for Coronavirus infection", which is extremely different from, "I hope that the research shows that HCQ will be an effective treatment for Coronavirus, and I am doing a study with the goal of showing that this is the case". Does that make sense?
- ColanR 6y ago
  I think you're leaving out a middle option, which is what I see when I read 'pro-HCQ' - a scientist who thinks we should further investigate HCQ (etc.) as a treatment option. Not someone who thinks it should be used as treatment, not someone who hopes the particular treatment turns out to be effective. I think that middle option is actually how a scientist would interpret the phrase. I can see why a layman would read it otherwise, though.

thebean11 6y ago

> Anyone who actually has a motive (like a company trying to make money) should be kept far away from the regulators that oversee the study > Isn't the point of a clinical intervention to save lives? Why do you think saving lives can't be the motive? If you do a study, and conclude based on that study that a treatment works, you're supposed to remain "neutral"? Let me put it this way, I wouldn't want to receive treatment from a healthcare provider who is "neutral" about the surgery they are about to give me, I want them to have a positive informed opinion based on experience, studies, etc.

landryraccoon 6y ago
Your doctor should not be acting as a researcher with you as a laboratory. They are taking a biased position in favor of you as a patient and should provide the best possible standard of care. A scientific researcher is trying to answer an unanswered question dispassionately. I don’t see how taking a bias in testing a scientific hypothesis can possibly determine the truth of a scientific fact. Are researchers who say that applying leeches won’t cure cancer bad for cancer patients? Why shouldn’t they be hopeful that leeches cure terminal cancer, rather than being downers? The answer is that cancer is the enemy, not people who oppose medical treatments that don’t work.