The treatment of patients with chronic heart failure has come a long way. But new treatments may not represent substantial gains--for patients, that is
Cynical I think, me too in the sense of rejection of social/pseudo scientific conventions and commonly accepted morality. But this people are cynical in the sense of attitude of the person who lies shamelessly and defends or practices in a shameless, impudent and dishonest way.
It’s ok to be cynical. In fact, it’s high time for it. In The “other HF trial” you will be referring to, the study sponsor was also involved in data collection, data analysis, and writing of the transcript. As was mentioned in one of the sensible med podcasts, such “disclosures” wallpaper over the overt and grotesque conflicts of interest, while doing bupkis in mitigating any of it.
I’d say it’s high time to remove ALL “content experts” from guideline committees, AND require that all guideline committee members affirm in writing that they have NOT received any financial or in-kind inducements/benefits from any pharma related to guideline contents for X years.
I don´t know to expect from clinical trials anymore. The PARADIGM trial doesn´t have reproducibility yet, and then these other two trials....I´m speechless...
Sadly evidence based medicine has become a tool to submit cientific thought.
We have a lot to learn from basic sciences (aka, physics).
Yet another amazing commentary on a trial. I’ve learnt so much from your thoughtful critical appraisal. Never learnt this much during training. Thank you for your wonderful service for all of us.
Not cynical, empirical and parsimonious. William of Ockham would approve.
Wise and thoughtful analysis... sometimes it is ok to be cynical...
Cynical I think, me too in the sense of rejection of social/pseudo scientific conventions and commonly accepted morality. But this people are cynical in the sense of attitude of the person who lies shamelessly and defends or practices in a shameless, impudent and dishonest way.
It’s ok to be cynical. In fact, it’s high time for it. In The “other HF trial” you will be referring to, the study sponsor was also involved in data collection, data analysis, and writing of the transcript. As was mentioned in one of the sensible med podcasts, such “disclosures” wallpaper over the overt and grotesque conflicts of interest, while doing bupkis in mitigating any of it.
I’d say it’s high time to remove ALL “content experts” from guideline committees, AND require that all guideline committee members affirm in writing that they have NOT received any financial or in-kind inducements/benefits from any pharma related to guideline contents for X years.
OK, I'm cynical. I just want good info when I'm talking my EF with my cardiologists.
That pooled analysis seems closely related to p-hacking.
Not cynical, sensible.
More evidence of why medical research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies cannot be trusted.
Incredible!!!!
I don´t know to expect from clinical trials anymore. The PARADIGM trial doesn´t have reproducibility yet, and then these other two trials....I´m speechless...
Sadly evidence based medicine has become a tool to submit cientific thought.
We have a lot to learn from basic sciences (aka, physics).
Yet another amazing commentary on a trial. I’ve learnt so much from your thoughtful critical appraisal. Never learnt this much during training. Thank you for your wonderful service for all of us.
And THAT is why I subscribe to this newsletter!