Also, scientists stand apart from their subject matter--as distantly as possible. Physicians, on the contrary, are in "a relationship" with patients. 2/
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 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
Also, scientists stand apart from their subject matter--as distantly as possible. Physicians, on the contrary, are in "a relationship" with patients. 2/
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
Fourth--and most pertinent here--one cannot narrowly limit the scientific knowledge to only RCTs as you do in your statement. /4
I won't rehash all the arguments here (and there are many!) but I'm sure you're familiar with this piece by Dr. Frieden from only a couple of years ago https://t.co/f7jHvDujUZ /5
My point is that your attacks miss the point: Medical standards cannot be reduced to scientific ones. /12
If you have an interest in the historical background for this, here are a couple of the pieces that I wrote on this topic a few years ago: /14
https://t.co/q5ECfaN47b