gds wrote:
:: On Mar 22, 2:31 pm, "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote:
::: Your first post to me or to the OP? I think you owe that person an
::: apology. Would you have ever spoken to one of your master's
::: students in such a way?
::
:: Absolutely, it is a terrible design and better to let the guy know
:: that at the front end then simply wait and fail him later. The
:: purpose of education is to teach people how to do it right.
Perhaps you are having a hard time reading, or, more likely, you're simply
an [censored].
I have no issues with correcting a student early on, as I do so all the
time. But it must be done constructively, not by taking potshots at them in
order to show how smart one is.
::
::
:::
::::: BTW despite the problems that have come out on drug companies not
::::: disclosing all the problems they found in their clinical trials-
::::: and that is a serious issue- don't you find it interesting that
::::: indeed they found those problems?
:::
::: Well, I think in some cases people had to start dying and/or suing.
::
::
:: That is true and I don't condone falsification of results. That said
:: there are side effects and bad outcomes associated with all good
:: things. The trick is to weight the pros and cons. So, for example,
:: with some of the rcent news on powerfull painkillers there were
:: deaths attributed to medication that ran in the few per thousand
:: range. This was deemed not acceptable. However, if you talk to some
:: folks that have really bad and chronic pain they may tell you that
:: given the info they would still take th drug because it resulted in
:: a great improvement in their quality of life and thye were willing
:: to asume the risk. However, given the litigation and asssociated
:: liability those drugs are no longer available. These decsions are
:: very complicated and are often very different for different
:: indviduals.
::
:::
::: Well, perhaps. I don't have the "inside" vision to see all of what
::: goes on. However, I have seen some parts of it first-hand and those
::: parts i'm not very happy with. I'm not speaking specifically about
::: research done on drugs, BTW, just about some aspects of the medical
::: community.
::
:: There is a lot to be critiqyes in our health care system. but this
:: conversation is about research design--or lack thereof.
::
This conversation isn't about research design at all.
:::
:::::
:::
::: I have to admit that very many of them are good. However, the real
::: money makers are ones that concern me, and those having to do with
::: cardiovasular issues such as heart diease and stroke really worry
::: me. Most especially, the statins.
::
:: The need to invest so much to bring a drug to market distorts a lot
:: of the work. I mean this in the sense that there is no business
:: logic to spending $billion to invent a drug for a desease that is
:: small and thus the company cannot recoup its investment. The statins
:: are aperfect example of economic incentive on the other side. Once
:: prescribed they are a drug taken for the rest of your life.
A sad state of affairs when this prescription is done based on a single
number such as LDL, further compounded by the fact that it cannot be proven
that CHOL even has a bearing on cardiovasular diease.
:: I hear
:: lots of docs saying that statins are wonderfull and that everyone
:: should take them. That scares me as the idea of altering liver
:: function for non symptomatic folks seems pretty extreme. But I can't
:: argue that particualr science with any expertise.
The notion that everyone should take a drug should scare anyone, as the
notion is absurd and one doesn't need to have the expertise to argue the
point.
::::
::: Careful here. You're very likely counting in that number the very
::: high salaries paid to drug reps and other wasteful practices in
::: coming to that high number. This is a place where throwing around
::: numbers can be dangerously misleading.
::
:: Actually I've seen some of the internal calculations and those
:: marketing cost are not included. But I'm sure there is some "fudge"
:: in the numbers. But that doesn't change the point The amount to be
:: invested/risked is huge. If calculation was off by half one would
:: still half to think a half $billion is still a lot of money.
Er, have you not noticed that everything associated with medicine tends to
be outrageously priced? I don't think it's simply a matter of dividing by
2, since costs compound upon themselves as everyone involved gets a piece of
the pie. It's not at all unlike changing $20 for an envelope.
::
:::
::: Well, it's hard to argue much with these points since I have
::: nothing real to grab hold of. I remain dubious of the entire
::: process.
::
:: And my original point is that one should remain dubious of research
:: which is conducted with flawed research design. And if students are
:: allowed to perform such poor studies and think they know what they
:: are doing and then go out into the real world without the abiity to
:: understand the diference between good and flawed research design we
:: are all in trouble.So, in the end I'm in the dubious camp right next
:: to you.
Perhaps, so. However, the process of education is not helped by beating up
the student on newgroups. And you really need to see exactly what is being
done with those survey results before you can make any kind of meaningful
assessment of the quality to the work done.
