Authors Michel Accad
7 days
30 days
All time
Recent
Popular
Sorry, Dr. Jha, but you shouldn't confuse medical care with the scientific enterprise. Although the 2 are commonly conflated, they are really distinct. 1/
The goal of science is to acquire knowledge. The goal of medicine is to help the sick. That's a fundamental distinction.
Also, scientists stand apart from their subject matter--as distantly as possible. Physicians, on the contrary, are in "a relationship" with patients. 2/
Of course, medical care should rely on scientific knowledge, but that means that science should be at the service of the patient-physician relationship, not the other way around! /3
Also, scientific knowledge can never be the ultimate arbiter of medical decisions.
First, scientific knowledge is often limited or provisional, especially with a new disease.
Second, for every patient there are myriad circumstances that influence a medical decision. /3
Third, even if excellent scientific knowledge is present, the physician must always judge how it applies to the patient, or whether it applies at all.
Fourth--and most pertinent here--one cannot narrowly limit the scientific knowledge to only RCTs as you do in your statement. /4
The hearings are meant as a questioning of the scientific process
— Ashish K. Jha, MD, MPH (@ashishkjha) December 7, 2020
To sew doubt on what we know and how we know it
So a group of us organized a response, which we just posted on our website
It isn't pro or anti hydroxy
Its about the scientific method and why it matters
2/3
The goal of science is to acquire knowledge. The goal of medicine is to help the sick. That's a fundamental distinction.
Also, scientists stand apart from their subject matter--as distantly as possible. Physicians, on the contrary, are in "a relationship" with patients. 2/
Of course, medical care should rely on scientific knowledge, but that means that science should be at the service of the patient-physician relationship, not the other way around! /3
Also, scientific knowledge can never be the ultimate arbiter of medical decisions.
First, scientific knowledge is often limited or provisional, especially with a new disease.
Second, for every patient there are myriad circumstances that influence a medical decision. /3
Third, even if excellent scientific knowledge is present, the physician must always judge how it applies to the patient, or whether it applies at all.
Fourth--and most pertinent here--one cannot narrowly limit the scientific knowledge to only RCTs as you do in your statement. /4