Mastectomies and Rigorous Evaluations
“In terms of reliable information about what works and what does not, United States law in 2016 is roughly where United States medicine was in the late 1930s, i.e., in the Dark Ages.”
by Sophie Laing
“In terms of reliable information about what works and what does not, United States law in 2016 is roughly where United States medicine was in the late 1930s, i.e., in the Dark Ages.”
by Sophie Laing
A blasphemous claim, perhaps, considering how attached we can be to these devices. How could you not lose weight clocking more and more steps each day? Don’t Fitbits and other similar trackers give a point and meaning to our exercise or daily routine? What did we do before this technology, which seems beneficial yet all of sudden life-encompassing? (David Sedaris lamented the death of his Fitbit, “Walking twenty-five miles, or even running up the stairs and back, suddenly seemed pointless, since, without the steps being counted and registered, what use were they?”)
by Sophie Laing
by Sophie Laing
This is Part 2 in a series called “Why RCTs?” which explores experiences with and without the benefit of randomized study across disciplines. In case you weren’t shocked enough by the robot babies account from last week, this blog post explores another catastrophic outcome, this time in the medical field. This time, the RCT produced results drastically different from those in prior observational studies, causing the medical community to reconsider long-held beliefs about the benefits of a treatment for cancer patients.
by Sophie Laing
Using empirical research to make the U.S. justice system work better for everyone.