This doctor has some unusual and original ideas about all manner of things:
His articles are well worth the reading, whether one agrees or not.
I was hoping there was some kind of finding here. I am a bit disappointed but it’s interesting to hear someone lament peer-review as much when, physics also relies heavily on it. I think the problem here is that doing lab experiments typically doesn’t risk killing millions of patients if you’re even slightly wrong.
To me an interesting question is this: Which of the following is preferable:
- You do clinical trials for a decade to decide if a medicine is safe, but while you are doing it countless people die from the lack of your treatment.
- You do a quick study, say “safe enough” and maybe you save millions, maybe you kill millions.
And in view of recent events, this hypothetical has suddenly become of urgent practical importance…