This is a great article. I’m going to link to it for a report I’m sending to HHS about how to transform the corrupt disease cartel sick care system. Also, look for a shout out in a post.
Excellent article that unfortunately no medical practitioner will ever read. That said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
Just saw this reprint via the Brownstone Institute.
A great article with one flaw that does not weaken its assertions -
RE "...EBM has been hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry to serve the interests of shareholders rather than patients...". This hijacking serves the interests of pharmaceutical industry Executives and damages shareholders.
These "Executives" reward themselves copiously via short term metrics while destroying their company's long term reputation and prospects. That is harmful to shareholders interests. Not to mention the billions of dollars siphoned from stockholder returns to pay fines, judgements, bribes (political contributions), unnecessary hires to influence academics and regulators, plus huge media spending to control editorial policy instead of creating value.
Everything in the article is correct. One of the main tools that the pharmacology and medical device industry has used to further their interests is the employment of the label "statistically significant" on very small differences in outcomes between experimental and control groups in randomized clinical trials. The sanctification of the "p" level as the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth should be abandoned. One of the most glaring examples of this is the prescription of statin drugs to a large percentage of the population based on the claim that it will protect against coronary heart disease and heart attacks. Tiny differences in outcomes that would be laughed at by the average layman employing common sense have been endorsed even by some who claim to follow evidence based medicine because the "p" level was said to be statistically significant.
NTT and ARR numbers should be routinely published so anyone who understands math can understand. As long as MSM Pharma advertising is allowed (it shouldn't be) those numbers should be visually and verbally stated in every TV, print, and radio commercial.
I agree. I would even leave out NTT. Everyone who made it past third grade can understand the actual risk reduction percentages. All the other stuff is just used to fool people. I wrote a book on cholesterol and heart disease 15 years ago and included an Appendix titled "How to read a medical journal article". It basically said just look at the raw data and calculate the percentages for the experimental and control groups and use common sense to decide whether the differences are of any practical significance. Ignore all the other statistical metrics such as "p" values, confidence intervals, regression equations, etc. They are just meant to confuse you.
Excellent reporting and well considered, but isn’t the problem even more fundamental than epistemological? Isn’t the problem metaphysical? Modern science, including modern medicine and especially psychology/psychiatry, are hopelessly entangled within the central dogma—the metaphysical premise—of mechanistic determinism. If the medical profession proceeds from this premise (a false premise, IMO) then we shouldn’t be surprised that all RCTs are limited to analyses of drug interventions v. a null hypothesis because, if all reality including consciousness itself is mechanistically determined, then all maladies, body or mind, are necessarily mechanistic in origin. So, while I tend to agree that there exists an epistemological battle in which Big Pharma uses a euphemism like EBM to dismantle a practitioner’s right to apply experience and inductive reasoning in lieu of a purely deductive diagnosis in which Big Pharma controls and defines the axioms—the study results—both sides nevertheless seem to never question the metaphysical premise that supports the field in which they do battle. As I said, this is most prominently true in the field of psychology/psychiatry. Consciousness and free will are metaphysical realities that dispel any notion that humans—and human illnesses—are entirely mechanistic in their nature. As common experience informs us, 99 times out of 100, the problem with one’s computer malfunction is software related, not hardware; so too the root of most “illnesses” (ranging from depression to obesity to addictions to infections) are rooted in a false conceptual framework (software) leading to a false morality leading to harmful choices leading to damaged bodies. Biochemical origins (hardware) requiring biochemical interventions do occur, but they are the exception, not the rule. The problem is, there’s no money in counseling (encouraging a patient to evaluate their values and choices) because that type of cure tends to be permanent with positive downstream effects for the patient; drugs make the money because, with few exceptions, no one gets cured; they just keep coming back for more treatment.
Bravo Toby - another crucial article that should be mandatory reading for every first-year medical student - or anyone even considering a career in medicine!!!
Oncologists will push chemo on nearly all cancer diagnosed patients, even if they know that there is no evidence for it working. They just type the name of the cancer into their little computers and it tells them what the standard protocol is and they prescribe it (and they make a percentage off the cos of what they prescribe).
My husband has cancer and when they told him he needed chemo, i spent a week looking for any studies related to the type of cancer he had. There were none, other than a few case studies. In those case studies there were only a few comments about chemo being generally ineffective.
When I asked two separate oncologists (who prescribed the same exact chemo regimen) if they had any information about the efficacy, they each acted embarrassed that I had caught them prescribing something that didn’t have any evidence of efficacy. Both oncologists had the exact same response, word for word, which was “we just don’t know.”
Why would they feel it is moral prescribe something that they have no evidence of working, but that they know, for certain, is harmful? How is this even legal?
Even after they verbally admitted they had no evidence of it working, they still pushed it.
The truth is, Oncologists/hospitals /big pharma make money off of harming people with ineffective chemo. They basically take advantage of people who are too fearful to think logically about what is happening. It’s just absolutely absurd and also pretty dark.
And yes, I am aware that a few cancers respond to chemotherapy quite well. But even then, those patients have a much higher risk of future cancer diagnosis. ..
TY for this Toby. Brilliant summary article on the use/abuse of EBM today. Toby Rogers writes:
“I want to highlight nine facets of EBM and evidence hierarchies as they apply to the autism epidemic. [These should shock all doctors into full awareness.]
[…]
7. It is beyond infuriating that evidence-based medicine has spent more than three decades extolling the virtues of double-blind, randomized, controlled trials, and yet all of the so-called RCTs in connection with vaccines are fraudulent. Everyone knows that they are fraudulent (even though the mainstream medical profession tries to excuse this fraud).
In clinical trials for vaccines, the control group is not given an inert saline placebo and is given another toxic vaccine or the toxic adjuvants from the trial vaccine instead. The Informed Consent Action Network (https://icandecide.org/article/childhood-vaccine-trials-summary-chart/) has the receipts.
So at the end of the day, the entire evidence-based medical system — including the tens of thousands of published papers and the thousands of careers dedicated to promoting EBM — is a giant theatrical production https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/public-health-is-to-actual-health to empower epidemiologists and enrich the pharmaceutical industry. The professionals involved do not believe their own stated values and are actively participating in the mass poisoning of the population and the destruction of civilization. This is one of the most extreme examples of a failure of moral courage and dereliction of scientific duty in the history of the world.”
Question, Toby > Shouldn’t this sentence be a “but” rather than an “and”?
“In clinical trials for vaccines, the control group is not given an inert saline placebo and [but] is given another toxic vaccine or the toxic adjuvants from the trial vaccine instead.”
I agree either can be used but still think it calls for a declarative "but"cuz not using saline or a neutral placebo is a real "but"..."youse farma/med fukrs are flat out lying about studying any actual vaxx dangers comparison to keep the vaxx scam going".
I said over and over during the lost years - there is NO PHYSICAL WAY to verify the claim that the vax REDUCED SYMPTOMS or prevented ANYONE from getting "severe" COVID. There is no way to prove ithat, as each patient is unique and can only have/not have the vax or COVID. This is SO basic!! No one who "supports the science" seems able in the least way understand it!!!
They've done it before. Many, many times. Here's a famous example.
In 2009 the Obama administration conjured up a statistic even more phony than the "job creation" statistics that all politicians had used before. Kind of like with vaccine safety and efficacy, "lives saved" empty assertions. The American Recovery Act's measure was intended as a metric to rate the success of the new administration's "stimulus" (another fictional concept) ARA passed in early 2009. "Jobs Saved or Created":
A meaningless measurement that had never been used before 2009 in any government unemployment statistical measure. Deceit. As if counting a job "saved" is even possible. Meant to convey an authoritative finding of economists asserting there was a return on the investment of $800 billion of taxpayers money. When there was none, or it was nominal, and a net negative return.
Taxpayer money did make corporate and Democratic party constituencies like labor unions and environment profiteers very happy, some jobs were created for them, maybe even saved. But not for the rest of America. By 2010 even the Associated Press called the measurement bullshite:
The slightest tug at the veil of deceit to look inside revealed the "jobs saved or created" metric to be false, unprovable.
Just. Like. "Vaccines saved(s) "x" lives." Bullshite. Same exact bullshite as phony ARA statistics. The only difference is it took legacy media only about a year or two to admit the stats were bullshite.
I'd say EBM (aka doctored results) is a relatively recent racket, a marketing phenomenon, to cover for the organized crime of the pharmafia cartel that's long been capitalizing on Health Care, Inc. I don't trust any pushers of petrochemical poisons polluting us more on top of the posions we're already eating, drinking, breathing. Self-enriching interests of the medical industrial complex who hide in plain sight global demise of life with public health reduced to privatized profit by germ warfare on monoplized mysteries of matter, with which epidemiology performs magic tricks of cost-benefit analysis, make the best of intentions irrelevant whenever running out their latest professional standards for best practices of corruption. The gravy train's not going to stop with epistemological critique alone, again, but social revolutiuon against a system which makes the few predators upon the many sick from oppression, as the medical subsystem is also a killing train, leading official death counts year after year ('iatrogenesis').
Great read. When is part 2 due.
This is a great article. I’m going to link to it for a report I’m sending to HHS about how to transform the corrupt disease cartel sick care system. Also, look for a shout out in a post.
Excellent article that unfortunately no medical practitioner will ever read. That said it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that "he who pays the piper calls the tune".
Just saw this reprint via the Brownstone Institute.
A great article with one flaw that does not weaken its assertions -
RE "...EBM has been hijacked by the pharmaceutical industry to serve the interests of shareholders rather than patients...". This hijacking serves the interests of pharmaceutical industry Executives and damages shareholders.
These "Executives" reward themselves copiously via short term metrics while destroying their company's long term reputation and prospects. That is harmful to shareholders interests. Not to mention the billions of dollars siphoned from stockholder returns to pay fines, judgements, bribes (political contributions), unnecessary hires to influence academics and regulators, plus huge media spending to control editorial policy instead of creating value.
Everything in the article is correct. One of the main tools that the pharmacology and medical device industry has used to further their interests is the employment of the label "statistically significant" on very small differences in outcomes between experimental and control groups in randomized clinical trials. The sanctification of the "p" level as the ultimate arbiter of scientific truth should be abandoned. One of the most glaring examples of this is the prescription of statin drugs to a large percentage of the population based on the claim that it will protect against coronary heart disease and heart attacks. Tiny differences in outcomes that would be laughed at by the average layman employing common sense have been endorsed even by some who claim to follow evidence based medicine because the "p" level was said to be statistically significant.
NTT and ARR numbers should be routinely published so anyone who understands math can understand. As long as MSM Pharma advertising is allowed (it shouldn't be) those numbers should be visually and verbally stated in every TV, print, and radio commercial.
I agree. I would even leave out NTT. Everyone who made it past third grade can understand the actual risk reduction percentages. All the other stuff is just used to fool people. I wrote a book on cholesterol and heart disease 15 years ago and included an Appendix titled "How to read a medical journal article". It basically said just look at the raw data and calculate the percentages for the experimental and control groups and use common sense to decide whether the differences are of any practical significance. Ignore all the other statistical metrics such as "p" values, confidence intervals, regression equations, etc. They are just meant to confuse you.
Excellent reporting and well considered, but isn’t the problem even more fundamental than epistemological? Isn’t the problem metaphysical? Modern science, including modern medicine and especially psychology/psychiatry, are hopelessly entangled within the central dogma—the metaphysical premise—of mechanistic determinism. If the medical profession proceeds from this premise (a false premise, IMO) then we shouldn’t be surprised that all RCTs are limited to analyses of drug interventions v. a null hypothesis because, if all reality including consciousness itself is mechanistically determined, then all maladies, body or mind, are necessarily mechanistic in origin. So, while I tend to agree that there exists an epistemological battle in which Big Pharma uses a euphemism like EBM to dismantle a practitioner’s right to apply experience and inductive reasoning in lieu of a purely deductive diagnosis in which Big Pharma controls and defines the axioms—the study results—both sides nevertheless seem to never question the metaphysical premise that supports the field in which they do battle. As I said, this is most prominently true in the field of psychology/psychiatry. Consciousness and free will are metaphysical realities that dispel any notion that humans—and human illnesses—are entirely mechanistic in their nature. As common experience informs us, 99 times out of 100, the problem with one’s computer malfunction is software related, not hardware; so too the root of most “illnesses” (ranging from depression to obesity to addictions to infections) are rooted in a false conceptual framework (software) leading to a false morality leading to harmful choices leading to damaged bodies. Biochemical origins (hardware) requiring biochemical interventions do occur, but they are the exception, not the rule. The problem is, there’s no money in counseling (encouraging a patient to evaluate their values and choices) because that type of cure tends to be permanent with positive downstream effects for the patient; drugs make the money because, with few exceptions, no one gets cured; they just keep coming back for more treatment.
Those are excellent points! 🙌
Evidence-Based Medicine suggests that they weren't using evidence before but just making it up as they went along.
They do the same now, just with much more crap information to confuse everybody.
Evidence-based medicine will anagram to:
- ie indeed embed vaccines
- ie be dim needed vaccines
Which is the main reason why of course.
Bravo Toby - another crucial article that should be mandatory reading for every first-year medical student - or anyone even considering a career in medicine!!!
Thank you, Debbie!!! 🙌
I knew EBM was fishy, Toby, but you have done an expert job of laying out how the sausage is made. Thank you.
https://open.substack.com/pub/marcospaulocandeloro/p/rfk-jr-and-the-twilight-of-health?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=zvhi
Oncologists will push chemo on nearly all cancer diagnosed patients, even if they know that there is no evidence for it working. They just type the name of the cancer into their little computers and it tells them what the standard protocol is and they prescribe it (and they make a percentage off the cos of what they prescribe).
My husband has cancer and when they told him he needed chemo, i spent a week looking for any studies related to the type of cancer he had. There were none, other than a few case studies. In those case studies there were only a few comments about chemo being generally ineffective.
When I asked two separate oncologists (who prescribed the same exact chemo regimen) if they had any information about the efficacy, they each acted embarrassed that I had caught them prescribing something that didn’t have any evidence of efficacy. Both oncologists had the exact same response, word for word, which was “we just don’t know.”
Why would they feel it is moral prescribe something that they have no evidence of working, but that they know, for certain, is harmful? How is this even legal?
Even after they verbally admitted they had no evidence of it working, they still pushed it.
The truth is, Oncologists/hospitals /big pharma make money off of harming people with ineffective chemo. They basically take advantage of people who are too fearful to think logically about what is happening. It’s just absolutely absurd and also pretty dark.
And yes, I am aware that a few cancers respond to chemotherapy quite well. But even then, those patients have a much higher risk of future cancer diagnosis. ..
What a bizarre and broken system.
Great and labour intensive article, thanks.
TY for this Toby. Brilliant summary article on the use/abuse of EBM today. Toby Rogers writes:
“I want to highlight nine facets of EBM and evidence hierarchies as they apply to the autism epidemic. [These should shock all doctors into full awareness.]
[…]
7. It is beyond infuriating that evidence-based medicine has spent more than three decades extolling the virtues of double-blind, randomized, controlled trials, and yet all of the so-called RCTs in connection with vaccines are fraudulent. Everyone knows that they are fraudulent (even though the mainstream medical profession tries to excuse this fraud).
In clinical trials for vaccines, the control group is not given an inert saline placebo and is given another toxic vaccine or the toxic adjuvants from the trial vaccine instead. The Informed Consent Action Network (https://icandecide.org/article/childhood-vaccine-trials-summary-chart/) has the receipts.
So at the end of the day, the entire evidence-based medical system — including the tens of thousands of published papers and the thousands of careers dedicated to promoting EBM — is a giant theatrical production https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/public-health-is-to-actual-health to empower epidemiologists and enrich the pharmaceutical industry. The professionals involved do not believe their own stated values and are actively participating in the mass poisoning of the population and the destruction of civilization. This is one of the most extreme examples of a failure of moral courage and dereliction of scientific duty in the history of the world.”
Question, Toby > Shouldn’t this sentence be a “but” rather than an “and”?
“In clinical trials for vaccines, the control group is not given an inert saline placebo and [but] is given another toxic vaccine or the toxic adjuvants from the trial vaccine instead.”
I think both are correct.
They are not given X and are given Y instead.
They are not given X but are given Y instead.
I agree either can be used but still think it calls for a declarative "but"cuz not using saline or a neutral placebo is a real "but"..."youse farma/med fukrs are flat out lying about studying any actual vaxx dangers comparison to keep the vaxx scam going".
But of course it's your call. ;-)
I said over and over during the lost years - there is NO PHYSICAL WAY to verify the claim that the vax REDUCED SYMPTOMS or prevented ANYONE from getting "severe" COVID. There is no way to prove ithat, as each patient is unique and can only have/not have the vax or COVID. This is SO basic!! No one who "supports the science" seems able in the least way understand it!!!
They've done it before. Many, many times. Here's a famous example.
In 2009 the Obama administration conjured up a statistic even more phony than the "job creation" statistics that all politicians had used before. Kind of like with vaccine safety and efficacy, "lives saved" empty assertions. The American Recovery Act's measure was intended as a metric to rate the success of the new administration's "stimulus" (another fictional concept) ARA passed in early 2009. "Jobs Saved or Created":
https://web.archive.org/web/20100712225301/http://www.businessandmedia.org:80/articles/2009/20090512100953.aspx
https://web.archive.org/web/20100221014007/http://www.heritage.org:80/research/economy/bg2305.cfm
A meaningless measurement that had never been used before 2009 in any government unemployment statistical measure. Deceit. As if counting a job "saved" is even possible. Meant to convey an authoritative finding of economists asserting there was a return on the investment of $800 billion of taxpayers money. When there was none, or it was nominal, and a net negative return.
Taxpayer money did make corporate and Democratic party constituencies like labor unions and environment profiteers very happy, some jobs were created for them, maybe even saved. But not for the rest of America. By 2010 even the Associated Press called the measurement bullshite:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100115104550/http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_bi_ge/us_stimulus_counting_jobs
The slightest tug at the veil of deceit to look inside revealed the "jobs saved or created" metric to be false, unprovable.
Just. Like. "Vaccines saved(s) "x" lives." Bullshite. Same exact bullshite as phony ARA statistics. The only difference is it took legacy media only about a year or two to admit the stats were bullshite.
Lies, damn lies and statistics.
I'd say EBM (aka doctored results) is a relatively recent racket, a marketing phenomenon, to cover for the organized crime of the pharmafia cartel that's long been capitalizing on Health Care, Inc. I don't trust any pushers of petrochemical poisons polluting us more on top of the posions we're already eating, drinking, breathing. Self-enriching interests of the medical industrial complex who hide in plain sight global demise of life with public health reduced to privatized profit by germ warfare on monoplized mysteries of matter, with which epidemiology performs magic tricks of cost-benefit analysis, make the best of intentions irrelevant whenever running out their latest professional standards for best practices of corruption. The gravy train's not going to stop with epistemological critique alone, again, but social revolutiuon against a system which makes the few predators upon the many sick from oppression, as the medical subsystem is also a killing train, leading official death counts year after year ('iatrogenesis').
So…I think the short version is: “Evidence-Based” = “The wrong people are not allowed to have the right answer”
Disgusting.