Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Adrian Gaty's avatar

“ Independent and transparent scrutiny of medical literature is crucial—especially when it leads to changes in practice.

Source data should be made available for independent review. Why would the FDA and authors refuse to share this data?”

Amen! Some medical reformers have been sounding this alarm for years. I cannot believe that major studies get published in major journals with almost zero transparency. I understand why a pharma company wants to hide its “massaged” numbers, but why on earth do the journals agree to go along with it? I have to believe that after everything the past couple years there will finally be a stronger push to release full trial data to the public, not have it cherry-picked and filtered through gatekeepers…

Like I wrote the other day, the silver lining of the total loss of public trust is that hopefully it will finally prompt these people to change their ways.

https://gaty.substack.com/p/2023-preview-the-end-of-medicine

Expand full comment
Dimitri's avatar

Frankly all conclusions will be off the mark when assuming pcsk9 / statins and LDL-C reduction is protective, and frankly this is an area that requires extreme caution and scepticism as i fail to see any evidence since Ancel Keys' fraudulent so called 7 countries study that high blood lipid is a problem at all. Just because they see firemen at every house fire doesn't mean the firemen are the cause, yet here we are still embracing this theory because ... food and drug industry. It stinks John because it's rotten. Yes i am absolutely aligning with such as Dr Malcolm Kendrick, and until I see robust evidence, I continue to be. Keep it up John, love your work and yes it should be obvious we need raw data, complete transparency. The only conclusion one can make is that the aim is to hide data, and negative data at that.

Expand full comment
40 more comments...