Quote:
Originally Posted by Si modo
I disagree somewhat with your last point. In clinical trials, negative as well as positive results must be reported. When a drug or other therapy doesn't work in a subject, that data cannot be excluded per clinical trial protocol.
|
But the entire study can be suppressed - there have been a host of calls for reforms to address this. Showing a positive correlation in one study out of three is far different than showing a positive correlation in one study. (possibly that has changed in the last year or two. I certainly could have missed it.)
Regardless, the main point is that although there have been gaping flaws in some medical experiments historically, medicine as a whole has moved forward. While it may be imperfect, decisions made with trial information are on average better than decisions made ignoring the trials. There are almost certainly misunderstandings in the current medical understanding of say cancer, but we know more now than 20 years ago and your chances of surviving are also higher by and large.
Crichton, in contrast, is saying we'd be better off ignoring the data completely. This logic would suggest that we ignore the last century of medical progress because their disclosure requirements were rather shoddy and open to misuse.