The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)

- Health (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=33)

- - 64% (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=17117)

According to BMJ Clincal Evidence, 64% of 2500 common medical treatments are ineffective, harmful, or of unknown effectiveness. Quite the reality check... Take care of yourselves people - diet and exercise.

I wonder how much of disease really is a lifestyle choice? Interesting numbers jinx, they don't seem out of line at first glance.

About what I expected.
When I worked in Medicines Management we did a lot of work on getting GPs to communicate the efficacy of various medicines to the general public.

There is a certain sector who believe that their medicines is free and therefore the Doctor should issue it on demand. Especially some people who don't pay the prescription charge go to the Doctors for over-the-counter medication that they could really afford themselves - ie paracetemol. As well as those who don't think they've been taken seriously unless they walk out with a prescription. It costs the NHS millions.

Some GPs go along with it because it gets people out of their consulting room quicker. Our job was to educate the GPs, so that they realised there would be less repeat patients wasting their time and budgets if they had a better idea of what each medicine did and didn't do.

I shudder when I see what some people take. I'm trying to educate HM re not buying branded medicines, and certainly not buying One Pill Cures All cold remedies.

Where is that rich scent of bull excrement coming from?

does that include aspirin? they've never figured out exactly how it works

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 448791)

Where is that rich scent of bull excrement coming from?

Is it your breath?

Can you show us the data behind the chart?

No. Did you follow the link?

Influenza Vaccination; policy versus evidence, from BMJ

Quote:

The optimistic and confident tone of some predictions of viral circulation and of the impact of inactivated vaccines, which are at odds with the evidence, is striking. The reasons are probably complex and may involve "a messy blend of truth conflicts and conflicts of interest making it difficult to separate factual disputes from value disputes"22 or a manifestation of optimism bias (an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of interventions).23

Whatever the reasons, it is a sobering thought that Archie Cochrane's 1972 statement that we should use what has been tested and found to reach its objectives is as revolutionary now as it was then.

I followed the link. I looked at every page. I found no data.

There's a "contact us" link - you could request it... I imagine "the data" on 2500 procedures is more extensive than what they wanted to print in the article. If you don't trust their analysis, that's up to you, but you've offered no data to suggest it's bullshit either.

For the record - the BMJ is a creditable source. When I worked in the NHS, pharmacists and GPs referred to their research.

BMJ stands for British Medical Journal.
They are as liable to errors as any publication, but made-up statistics isn't really their bag.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Undertoad (Post 448915)

Well, maybe I will!

I double-dog-dare you to.