|
#1 by Anonymous (Nobody) at 18 May 2014 09:23:34 GMT
| Many thanks for tiankg the time to reply, Ben.Just a couple of points:In fact there’s no other way to do it: the methods and results of individual studies need to be explained to a lay audience, otherwise a reader cannot know what kind of research is being included in the systematic review.Yes, that's a perfectly reasonable position. But since you happened to pick the one study with by far the most extreme results as your first example of an individual study, I stand by my use of the phrase cherry picking .Information given to regulators can be withheld from doctors and patients.Indeed it can, and as I acknowledged in my post, we're all agreed that that's a bad thing. However, in the book you say that data are withheld from everyone. That's not true if the data are disclosed to regulators, is it?if that sentence isn’t clear enough already then I imagine a single word change will make it even clearer, I’ll happily have a look at doing that.Yes, I think it would. Just change have to had , and it would all make perfect sense. Many thanks for looking at that.There’s no inconsistency: on page 59 the book explains the loophole, on page 61 the book explains that the loophole gets fixed.I think there is an inconsistency as written, but if page 59 is changed to make it clear that the loophole is no longer present, that problem would go away. However, you still have the claim on page 61 that the EMA don't need to know about trials outside Europe. Perhaps that was true at some time in the past for all I know, but it isn't now, and page 61 is most definitely written in the present tense. |
|
