DWQA Questions › Tag: innovators
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 5 days ago • 
31 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 days ago • 
38 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 days ago • 
33 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 3 months ago • 
144 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 3 months ago • 
122 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 3 months ago • 
114 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 3 months ago • 
72 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 3 months ago • 
88 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 3 months ago • 
117 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 • 
172 views0 answers0 votes
A former intelligence agent started a business coaching people in spy techniques and insights that he believed could be applied to everyday life to help people be more effective in accomplishing whatever it is they set out to do. Like most things in life, these techniques and understandings can be used for good or evil. A match can light a birthday candle or start a forest fire. To the extent that others might use these teachings for harm, how much karmic liability attaches to the teacher? Is this a reason why dangerous knowledge was historically reserved for initiates? And even that would seem to have karmic polarity in that it safeguards the innocent and immature on the one hand, but can also be a means to hoard and deny access to resources that one can argue should be more widely shared. What is Creator’s perspective on the “safe handling” and/or dissemination and sharing of material that is potentially helpful but equally dangerous?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
587 views0 answers0 votes
Intelligence agencies are in the business of gathering intelligence—information that is difficult to attain through ordinary means; information that people are hesitant and resistant to give up or share. The successful intelligence agent will employ the tools of motivation and manipulation to get this information. These tools are matched to particular means with which to motivate and/or manipulate people to get them to do what you want them to do. These approaches are referred to with the acronym “R.I.C.E.” Reward, Ideology, Coercion, and Ego. Of these four, appealing to ideology is seen as the most effective, and coercion the least. If you successfully appeal to ideology, the “target” will trust you and share almost anything. Coercion is the weakest as, contrary to Hollywood, it may work the first time you use it, but then you destroy trust and will have fewer opportunities for future success with the target. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
448 views0 answers0 votes
While being trained as an intelligence officer, this individual learned he was an ideal candidate because he was special (clearly an appeal to ego), or at least that is what he thought. But, in fact, he learned he was special because he had been algorithmically identified as psychologically damaged and traumatized in particular ways that were useful for intelligence gathering. These are people one would rarely label “well adjusted” by society’s standards. The agency was ruthlessly honest in telling him they intended to leverage that dysfunction, give him a vocabulary for understanding the nuances of human motivation and manipulation, and techniques for achieving goals and agendas with targets. In this undertaking, the overall wellbeing of the target is not a top consideration and moral flexibility was a prized capacity for successful agents. What is Creator’s perspective on the moral flexibility so highly prized by intelligence agencies?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
415 views0 answers0 votes
This former intelligence officer shared that if you need a target’s cooperation, and there is no means by which to positively and transparently motivate them, then that gives you the green light to manipulate them. What is Creator’s perspective?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
443 views0 answers0 votes
This former intelligence officer warned that the typical person has no idea just how much and on what scale advanced motivation and manipulation techniques are being deployed against them. It’s not a conspiracy theory. Creator has affirmed this as well on multiple occasions. When confronted with this reality, two questions come to mind. Can I avoid it? And if I can’t avoid it, can I successfully resist it? Is there even an answer outside of divine partnership? What can Creator tell us?
ClosedNicola asked 2 years ago • 
449 views0 answers0 votes
123Next »
Ask Question