While this article starts talking about abortion. All of us have seen the impact of politicians/bureaucrats exercising their opinions or the opinions of others who have lobbied these bureaucrats/politicians who convinced them what they were being told were the correct FACTS, which should be used to create some legislation. It also demonstrates how attorneys are imposing their opinions/beliefs on a large portion of our population in relation to how/if certain medical procedures/treatments should be provided and if provided on a limited basis. At what point can we expect attorneys & or the judicial system to stop trying to protect us from ourselves?
Recent abortion cases are a harbinger of things to come…
https://www.daily-remedy.com/abortion-harbinger-of-healthcare/
Two recent court cases that transpired just this week are harbingers of future judicial activism that is likely to ramp up next year during the election cycle.
First, the Texas Supreme Court recently made a controversial decision regarding the medical exemption for abortion in the case of Kate Cox, a woman carrying a fetus with a fetal chromosomal abnormality. The ruling prompted her to seek an abortion out of state.
Second, the Supreme Court agreed to review the issue of whether mifepristone, a commonly prescribed abortion medication, can be prescribed through telemedicine visits and shipped to a patient’s home by mail.
At first blush, it may feel like the two cases have little to do with one another aside from being about abortions. But the similarities run perniciously deep and reflect a common theme when it comes to abortion and its policy: non-clinically trained judges use legal rhetoric to justify an inherently moralized position on abortion.
Several factors determine which avenues of drug discovery that people in research and pharmaceutical companies focus on. Research funding amplifies the pace of scientific discovery needed to create new treatments.
How to strike a balance between providing incentives to develop miracle drug therapies for a few people at the expense of the many is a question researchers and policymakers are still grappling with.
In 2021, 51% of drug discovery spending in the U.S. was directed at only 2% of the population.
Of the more than 7,000 known rare diseases, defined as fewer than 200,000 people affected in the U.S., only 34 had a therapy approved by the Food and Drug Administration before 1983.
Clinical trials serve as the gold standard for evaluating the safety and effectiveness of new treatments. However, recent investigations have brought to light a disturbing truth: flawed data and fraudulent practices are more prevalent than we may realize.
One of the leading voices in exposing these issues is Dr. Carlisle, an Anesthesiologist working for England’s National Health Service, who meticulously examined a random sample size of over 500 studies and found that 44% contained flawed data, with 26% being completely untrustworthy.
The rise of paper mills, or journals that publish voluminous amounts of specious studies at an increasingly expeditious rate, has further exacerbated the problem, with tens of thousands of suspected fake papers flooding journals.
When flawed or fraudulent data is used to support the approval of a treatment, patients may be exposed to unnecessary risks or be denied access to alternative therapies that may be more effective and safer.
Coughs are notorious this time of the year, with the winter winds blowing and so many remaining indoors for prolonged periods.
It is ordinary enough to carry on with it, yet persistent enough to ruin anyone’s day. This delicate balance explains why ‘cough’ is among the most commonly searched terms on Google right now.
Interestingly enough, neither antibiotics nor antitussives or cough suppressants, make much of a difference. In a prospective study analyzing whether a cough resolved when treated with either medication, the majority found little to no symptomatic relief.
How much of this comes from actually being treated versus the placebo effect, or the perception of being treated, is still unknown, but we surmise most if not all the perceived improvement gleaned was more perceptual than true clinical benefit.
Filed under: General Problems
Leave a Reply