DWQA Questions › Tag: higher education
Filter:AllOpenResolvedClosedUnanswered
We have shared comments about the paper in JAMA blowing the whistle on medical dangers, in pointing out that the U.S. healthcare system was the third leading cause of death in America (Starfield, B. Is US health really the best in the world? JAMA 2000 284:483-5). Things continue to raise questions. I just saw a citation of an editorial by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, one of the world’s top medical journals, published in 2015 in which he says: “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” While this is largely focused on the pressures to publish because of the vested interests of researchers, as well as journal editors, is there a deeper reason that quality and integrity suffer?
ClosedNicola asked 3 hours ago • 
5 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “In his 1970s book, Medical Nemesis, Ivan Illich suggests medicine isn’t the primary reason people survive illness; sanitation, nutrition, and housing matter more. He goes on to say over-treatment and exaggeration of disease are widespread, that healthcare fosters dependency, and that illness is seen as unacceptable. Healthcare often operates less for the benefit of patients and more to serve political, social, or bureaucratic interests – public image, economic concerns, or voter approval over medical advice. His views jarred badly with me. Is it right to say, in 2026, that people avoid confronting mortality and that modern healthcare is more about socio-political optics than illnesses?”
ClosedNicola asked 5 hours ago • 
2 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “An overlooked aspect of modern medicine is perhaps that now normal human experiences—such as minor stress, aging, ‘high’ blood pressure, ‘high’ cholesterol, or childbirth—are labeled as medical problems that require professional intervention. Society has arguably become increasingly dependent on doctors and healthcare institutions, losing confidence in self-care and mutual support. Medical institutions now dictate social norms, defining what is ‘normal’ or ‘deviant,’ and expanding their authority into everyday life. Is this intended to weaken society’s resilience, creating a population that depends on the medical system for a ‘pharmaceutical invasion’ and even the conception of who is ‘ill?'”
ClosedNicola asked 5 hours ago • 
4 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “High blood pressure is conventionally regarded as a health risk and that lowering it reduces risk, especially in moderate-to-severe systolic BP of 140-159 mmHg. Dr. Malcolm Kendrick author of Doctoring Data claims that cardiovascular risk increases more steeply after systolic BP reaches around 160-170 mmHg—well beyond the 140/90 threshold often used to diagnose and treat hypertension. A rule of thumb in medicine is that for older individuals, a systolic BP of around 100 + age is a reasonable upper limit beyond which cardiovascular risks increase significantly. Is hypertension over-treated, given that aggressively lowering blood pressure—especially in older individuals—can be harmful?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
138 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2018 book, Medical Nihilism, by Jacob Stegenga claims the healthcare system over-adopts treatments and under-recognizes risks. He states confidence in the effectiveness of medical interventions should be low because empirical evidence for the efficacy of many treatments is weak due to methodological flaws, publication bias, the influence of commercial interests. He claims positive studies are more likely to be published, screening programs tend to detect and treat cancers that would never cause harm, common treatments can cause long-term complications, short trial durations miss long-term harms etc. How accurate is his view that evidence is systematically skewed and harms are undercounted?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
118 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Bernard Lown, a Harvard cardiologist in the 1980s, criticized the rapid rise of surgical Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts (CABG), noting 20–40% were potentially avoidable, especially in stable angina, and many patients had uncertain survival benefit. He advocated medical therapy—nitrates, beta-blockers, lifestyle changes—for symptom control. How accurate is it to say that in 2026, evidence-based guidelines and trials have reduced avoidable CABG to <10% for high-risk, guideline-selected patients, and that for low-risk, stable patients, surgery rarely improves survival, and that beta-blockers, nitrates, ACE inhibitors, lifestyle changes are to be preferred?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
109 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “A 2012 paper in the British Medical Journal “Use of relative and absolute effect measures in reporting health inequalities” concluded that “75% (258/344) [of 2009 papers] reported only relative effect measures.” Absolute risk reduction is often far less impressive and less often stated. This suggests that physicians will overestimate the efficacy of treatments and patients may have a misplaced belief in both effectiveness and risks. To what extent does this practice mislead patients and clinicians and benefit pharmaceutical manufacturers?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
61 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Dr. Malcolm Kendrick in his book, Doctoring Data, suggests more patients are harmed by over-treatment than helped. He claims published treatment benefits are often exaggerated by hiding behind relative risk (to mask how tiny most benefits are), selective reporting (such as statistical significance without meaningful benefit), or clever framing (such as natural variation in cholesterol or blood pressure) is medicalized as a treatable condition. To what extent is published medical research actually the fabricated appearance of scientific rigor to sell a product?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
83 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “What percentage of patients take drugs for almost no real benefit, even while risking side effects and penalized by the cost?”
ClosedNicola asked 2 months ago • 
114 views0 answers0 votes
A recent national survey reports that half of American schools require ‘Equitable’ Grading and most teachers are opposed. The report identifies five equitable grading practices: unlimited test retakes, no late penalties, no zeroes, no homework, and no required participation. Critics cite examples of the policy enabling students to survive by going through the motions, but in the end losing out. Many school districts report a majority of students being as much as three years behind in basic proficiency. What is Creator’s perspective about American K-12 education and the reasons for chronic underperformance?
ClosedNicola asked 8 months ago • 
170 views0 answers0 votes
A viewer asks: “Why don’t our scientific studies give some credence to belief in your own healing?” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
376 views0 answers0 votes
In Dr. Anthony Fauci’s autobiography, he describes a grilling by Senator Rand Paul as the latter’s misunderstanding that gain of function research on viruses is not the same as “gain of function research of concern,” because only the latter includes potentially dangerous manipulations to increase pathogenicity and transmissibility of infectious viruses. Fauci explained what the U.S. funded in the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) was work on bat viruses that were non-infectious in humans, to simply study their properties. Secondly, he points out that the “molecular makeup of the bat viruses studied at the WIV under the NIAID/EHA grant was genetically so different from SARS-CoV-2 that they could not possibly be the source of SARS-CoV-2.” Is that an accurate description by Fauci and not a minimization or deceptive misstatement of fact?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
314 views0 answers0 votes
Was the condemnation and inflammatory attack on Fauci by Senator Rand Paul orchestrated through mind control manipulation by the Extraterrestrial Alliance to provide a false narrative, and was that picked up and reported many times by Fox News commentators without careful review and analysis because of mind control manipulation to create a cover story for appearance of what is actually an extraterrestrial viral creation?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
365 views0 answers0 votes
Fauci criticized Dr. Scott Atlas, a Stanford professor advising the Trump administration, for stating the current public health measures were overkill and recommending the following: 1. “Schools should be fully reopened because COVID was not a serious threat to children and they did not transmit the virus efficiently even if they got infected.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
344 views0 answers0 votes
Fauci criticized Dr. Scott Atlas, a Stanford professor advising the Trump administration, for stating the current public health measures were overkill and recommending the following: 2. “COVID would run its course no matter what actions were taken.” What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
351 views0 answers0 votes
123…5Next »
Ask Question