@ OrphanCrow...
Ah, got it.
But the Org referenced this fraudulant and falsely-credited document?
Figures.
Retracted: "Safety of cardiac surgery without blood transfusion: a retrospective study in Jehovah’s Witness patients"
by OrphanCrow 17 Replies latest watchtower medical
-
Vidiot
-
OrphanCrow
vidiot: But the Org referenced this fraudulant and falsely-credited document?
Well, that depends on how you define 'the org'.
The Org/WT didn't reference this article...at least, not directly, that I know of. This article is referenced by the blood management/bloodless people - it is used as a justification for not giving blood to JWs.
The material that the HLC uses to justify and legitimize noblood for JWs will use this article. The HLC and the blood management industry sleep in the same bed together.
-
keinlezard
Hello,
Jwleaks have you got time to put your reference about retractated article ?
And where I can see it ?
Thanks
-
darkspilver
Interesting ....
Apparently data mining anonymous medical records can be hugely effective in improving health care and implementing preventive measures etc for the greater good - this includes retrospective and historical data were often times permissions can not be obtained.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2086454-revealed-google-ai-has-access-to-huge-haul-of-nhs-patient-data/
Just because the correct ethical permissions were not obtained in this case, doesn't invalidate the results - ie it doesn't mean the study is wrong, and the retraction seems clear on that, there is no claim that the results are wrong?
More questionable is how the vetting procedure was / is implemented at the Association of Anaesthetists of Great Britain & Ireland? (and by extension by Wiley and Blackwell Publishing)
Three out of four of this studies authors claim they did not write it.
Why were they not individually contacted and asked prior to publication?
Isn't that basic vetting??
How many other studies have been retracted?
Here's an interesting internet search to do...
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=THIS+ARTICLE+HAS+BEEN+RETRACTED+site%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com#q=%22THIS+ARTICLE+HAS+BEEN+RETRACTED%22+site:http:%2F%2Fonlinelibrary.wiley.com -
OrphanCrow
darkspliver: Just because the correct ethical permissions were not obtained in this case, doesn't invalidate the results - ie it doesn't mean the study is wrong, and the retraction seems clear on that, there is no claim that the results are wrong?
That is a moot point. The study did not have approval to be conducted. End of story. Results are irrelevant - it shouldn't have happened in the first place.If a person still wanted to make such a case, and claim validity of results, it would undermine all scientific studies that require consent to proceed and it would take us right back to Nazi Germany. The Nuremberg Code was put in place for a reason
-
darkspilver
The first moot point is the apparently very sloppy - to a lay person like me - vetting procedure/s that apparently professional organizations have in place (or don't have in place) to allow this to begin with - as such the whole study is somewhat 'dodgy' - but obviously the retraction didn't go into details.
The second is... yes I think, in lay terms, I understand the principles behind the Nuremberg Code - basically to stop un-consented medical experimentation, including being within A/B control groups for drug testing etc etc. Basically it stops medical professionals from choosing who to treat, and how, and who not to treat. And, yes, this is extremely important ethically.
But that wasn't the case in this study was it? - the medical professionals wanted to give all the patients the full medical attention that was possible, and apparently everything was done that was possible for each and every patient. Rather, it was the patients, in the case of the Witnesses, who chose not to have certain medical therapies, ie they pre-selected themselves.
The issue is there's a huge amount of medical data available - particularly in countries with state sponsored cradle-to-care national health schemes..... some might view it as immoral not to be able to anonymously data mine that valuable information to ultimately, if not actually save lives, then to at least hugely improve lives.
From The Times, February 8 2014
Patients opting out of a scheme to share medical data for research are being selfish, according to a leading GP, who compared them to parents who refuse to give their children the MMR jab.
Dr Clare Gerada said that the “amazing and transformational” plan would save lives and could have headed off the thalidomide scandal. The former chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs says that it is scaremongering to think confidential medical records will be sold to insurance companies.
Dr Gerada said that the NHS had mishandled explaining the scheme, but insisted that patients had nothing to fear. “For the first time we will be able to capitalise on a unique feature of the NHS — comprehensive records, collected from ‘cradle to grave’, allowing us to combine GP data on patients with hospital data, which is what the long-overdue initiative aims to solve.”
Dr Gerada writes that the scheme will make medicines safer and improve treatment: “If we had had this system 55 years ago, at almost the push of a button we could have identified the link between a medicine commonly prescribed by GPs for morning sickness (Debendox) with catastrophic birth defects a few months later (thalidomide).”
Patients can opt to take their records out of the scheme, but Dr Gerada urged them not to. “It is selfish. It’s a bit like people who don’t give their kids MMR for herd immunity. There are some things we have to do for the sake of the greater ‘we’,” she says. “Part of the compact to get a universal, free health service is to allow data to be used to monitor diseases, plan services and look at trends in new and old illnesses. The risk of a breach is minimal.”DarK SpilveR
That's all folks!
You have a headache?
I've got some headache pills - bottle A and bottle B
You want to know which are are best?
Oh, I know, because people have told me - I know which are best and which are terrible.
No, I can't tell you! - I didn't get permission from those people to pass that information on to you
-
Vidiot
OrphanCrow - "...it would undermine all scientific studies that require consent to proceed and it would take us right back to Nazi Germany. The Nuremberg Code was put in place for a reason."
Good thing, too.
Otherwise Mary Shelley's Frankenstein would be required reading at Med School.
-
darkspilver
I think you're missing the principle here - we're not taking about proactive medical studies (where knowingly treatment may be given or withheld to facilitate the study), but reactive medical studies (ie the study has absolutely no bearing on the treatment being given)
As the former chairwoman of the Royal College of GPs, Dr Clare Gerada, said with regards to anonymous data mining: “If we had had this system 55 years ago, at almost the push of a button we could have identified the link between a medicine commonly prescribed by GPs for morning sickness (Debendox) with catastrophic birth defects a few months later (thalidomide).”
I'll give you the benefit of doubt - if you had read the article I posted, had fully processed it and knew what thalidomide was/is - then you wouldn't have used Frankenstein as an example.
As Dr Gerada said: "There are some things we have to do for the sake of the greater 'we'."It is perhaps also an example of the 'tyranny of the majority.'
DarK SpilveR
That's all folks!