Ben Goldacre's engaging and comical style writing persuades you to join his view of science. His thorough research and facts support a strong argument against all groups who present 'Bad Science' in research.
He particularly shuns homeopaths as he believes they are no better than placebo stating that they 'cherry pick' trials. Whilst this may well be true, it contradicts claims in the book I have read called, 'What the Drug Companies Wont Tell You and You're Doctor Doesn't Know', by Michael T Murray, claiming that the trial methods are all included and accuse drug companies of paying scientists to 'cherry pick' the results and not homeopaths. For me, it is easier to believe Ben Goldacre's claims, as he takes a more unbiased approach, by highlighting 'Bad Science', in both mainstream and alternative drug industries.
From this I have learnt to be critical in all investigations that you do first hand, which is so important in modern day evidence-based medicine. There are so many factors to control in investigations and in this book I learned the importance of randomisation and double blind trials. A particular topic that grabbed my attention was placebos. I also found it interesting to note that the method of placebo used can affect how effective the placebo is. For example an injection of salt water is more effective as a placebo than a sugar pill because the injection is a far more dramatic event. The manner of the doctor can also alter the placebo effect. Patients report better improvements in their health, when prescribed the same treatment from a more warm, empathetic and reassuring doctor, than doctor who is cold and less reassuring. This makes me reflect on the kind of doctor that I would want to be. It also highlights why double blind trials are vitally important in investigations.
I feel as a prospective doctor it is important to know about the science behind the medicine, rather than prescribing drugs blindly to patients. The drug companies are the base of the healthcare system and without them there would be next to no treatments. In order to advance the field medicine, scientists need to be precise and critical with their investigations. In addition it is important not to waste money on unnecessary research. For example, utilising tools such as Meta-analysis, whereby you collate results from trials, each too small to be conclusive. After all, information can save lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment