Add a Comment
Save my information
I’ve asked the author of this article if he ever spoke with Lars Jorgensen, the corresponding author of Gotzsche’s HPV vaccine critique and his last PhD student. I haven’t gotten an answer, but Gotzsche was conveniently removed from Nordic Cochrane the week before Jorgensen submitted his dissertation on HPV vaccines naming Gotzsche as his “Principal Supervisor.” The reason Jorgensen wasn’t “removed” was because he graduated when Gotzsche was removed.
Not interviewing a key person for a vaccine story and leaving readers in the dark is par for the course at “Undark.”
And how strange that after 25 years of presumably using letterheads the same way and being the same person, Cochrane suddenly decides it can’t stand Peter Gotzsche after he criticizes its view on vaccines. Of course, it really isn’t strange because it should be obvious to anyone familiar with this issue: Cochrane can no longer stand Peter Gotzsche because it can’t stand his view on vaccines.
Good piece of journalism that I think Cochrane’s leadership ought to respond to. My own two cents, speaking as a journalist, is that dropping “Collaboration” was as crazy as an aborted UK idea, years back, to rename “Royal Mail” as “Consignia”. But then I think it was crazy to rename the British Medical Journal, The BMJ. So what would I know?
Sackett’s concept of Evidence-Based Medicine (EBM), in the British Medical Journal in 1996, is that EBM relies on the combination of relevant research (which means going beyond randomized controlled trials), clinician judgment and experience, and family culture and values, to offer families a range of options for truly informed consent. relying on research alone may lead to recommending options that have no hope of acceptance to families, and relying on clinical judgment alone leads to the use of ineffective treatments by believers with no good research to back up the approach. The balance between these things is crucial. My understanding is that the US National Academies of Science Institutes of Medicine (now called the National Academies of Medicine) adopted this version of EBM in 2001. Still, we see people continue to use a definition of EBM that is restricted to RCTs and, in a way, can just as easily create misrepresentations in the field if negative studies aren’t published.. The advent of ALl Trials helps, requiring reporting on all clinical trials, but the fines are small and the process is still new. So far I have seen two studies reporting no effect of desvenlafaxine in children with depression, which in my view is rare, courageous and clinically helpful. But I’d like to see this discussion fleshed out to cover the range of definitions of EBM and the intent of Sackett and others in ‘allowing’ additional considerations beyond RCTs.
While the tone of the article is that Gotzchke is now questionable because his questions have extended toward the field of medicine in general, one would ask why should this be surprising or indeed, unethical? He has spent his time trawling through the negative depths of the medical industry and perhaps has uncovered even more than he expected.
The man should be judged on the data he produces and not through any bias toward those who question vaccines or medications. Indeed, everyone should question everything which is done to their body. That is common sense.
Doctors are not gods and they often make mistakes as we see from the death rate, in third place, from conventional medicine, most of it from prescribed drugs. More so because the chemists control the medical industry and influence research outcomes as has become increasingly clear.
It is not just Gotzche who has raised questions about the reliability of research. Editors of both The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine have done so and the work of Dr John Ioannadis concluded, most published research is false.
Methinks the writer of this article betrays his own prejudices rather than revealing Peter Gotzche’s.
Peter Gøtzsche – a true modern hero.