How is it not accurate? Someone’s titles or anecdotal evidence are irrelevant when statistics about millions of individuals are the only tool to reveal such tiny issues.
If one doctor would already notice issues with something, then the whole massive chain that led to the human use of that medicine completely failed in an unprecedented way - after all, even the most basic tests should have immediately revealed problems.
A doctor has access to totally different electronic information services than the average jackass on Facebook, if you didn’t know. Lawyers and journalists have their own versions of this too. So yeah, any doctor has better info than any private individual.
More importantly, they have well-informed judgment about how to consume those statistics, quality them, and apply them. This is quite important as the average Facebook jackass is bombarded by deliberately misleading information which they need to think critically about unraveling.
Have you tried to read a primary resource, scientific article? They are mostly behind a paywall, hospitals and universities pay for subscription access. So yes, doctors and researchers have easier access to papers than the public (and the expertise to critically evaluate the information presented). Also, those large cohort studies with thorough stats are a huge amount of work and always have a team of people to design the experiments, interact with patients, get the data, run the stats, and so forth. MDs would be in the mix there too, it’s not like a single immunologist would do the whole thing alone…
That is your argument? Paywall? And now it is just easier access, not actually some kind of different material all together as you claimed? There are things like Scihub, let alone any student in any university has essentially access to all papers anyway? How is that in any way anything special?
I also don’t get why you bring me into the discussion. Keep it about the topic at hand, you know nothing about me. It is irrelevant whether I read papers or not.
“access to totally different electronic information services”
“has better info than any private individual.”
I think I misunderstood you regarding the different information (did not notice the word “services”).
In any case, any random person has access to that information. A doctor will be more likely to read such papers and will also be more qualified to interpret them compared to the average of the population.
However, anecdotal evidence is still irrelevant. And so are titles. All that matters are the arguments. If some little kid has arguments against something a Nobel prize winning Professor says… then so be it.
The point is that her education or anecdotal evidence is not relevant to begin with.
That is neither accurate nor the point.
How is that not the point he made?
How is it not accurate? Someone’s titles or anecdotal evidence are irrelevant when statistics about millions of individuals are the only tool to reveal such tiny issues. If one doctor would already notice issues with something, then the whole massive chain that led to the human use of that medicine completely failed in an unprecedented way - after all, even the most basic tests should have immediately revealed problems.
A doctor has access to totally different electronic information services than the average jackass on Facebook, if you didn’t know. Lawyers and journalists have their own versions of this too. So yeah, any doctor has better info than any private individual.
More importantly, they have well-informed judgment about how to consume those statistics, quality them, and apply them. This is quite important as the average Facebook jackass is bombarded by deliberately misleading information which they need to think critically about unraveling.
How does a doctor have different access to papers with statistical analysis regarding such topics?
Does a lawyer have different laws than those I can look at?
Better judgement, yes, valid point.
Have you tried to read a primary resource, scientific article? They are mostly behind a paywall, hospitals and universities pay for subscription access. So yes, doctors and researchers have easier access to papers than the public (and the expertise to critically evaluate the information presented). Also, those large cohort studies with thorough stats are a huge amount of work and always have a team of people to design the experiments, interact with patients, get the data, run the stats, and so forth. MDs would be in the mix there too, it’s not like a single immunologist would do the whole thing alone…
That is your argument? Paywall? And now it is just easier access, not actually some kind of different material all together as you claimed? There are things like Scihub, let alone any student in any university has essentially access to all papers anyway? How is that in any way anything special?
I also don’t get why you bring me into the discussion. Keep it about the topic at hand, you know nothing about me. It is irrelevant whether I read papers or not.
I think you are confused. I never implied it was different material. Blocking you now.
“access to totally different electronic information services” “has better info than any private individual.”
I think I misunderstood you regarding the different information (did not notice the word “services”).
In any case, any random person has access to that information. A doctor will be more likely to read such papers and will also be more qualified to interpret them compared to the average of the population. However, anecdotal evidence is still irrelevant. And so are titles. All that matters are the arguments. If some little kid has arguments against something a Nobel prize winning Professor says… then so be it.