|
|
Post by petech on Sept 14, 2015 9:10:28 GMT -5
Correction. GRAND SLAM is hitting it out of the park with bases loaded. GRAM SLAM is partying late night with wealthy and pretty people wait a minute... I don't know anything about this stuff, but it would seem to me that the late night partying thing with the rich and pretty should be called a GLAM - SLAM  Let's all agree it was a typo and not revisit the definition of "gram slam"....it would be best for everyone on this board.  |
|
|
|
Post by mnholdem on Sept 14, 2015 11:12:33 GMT -5
I guess I was paying too much attention to the Giants-Cowboys game to notice the spell-check overrode me, as it has others from time to time.
My point is that I am hopeful that further post-marketing trials and studies will validate Al Mann's claims about remission of this disease being possible if caught early and intensive insulin therapy with Afrezza is prescribed to help restore the pancreas to its normal function. Convincing the medical community may take years, but if the evidence supports this claim, I simply don't see how Afrezza could not become the new standard for early treatment, especially in light of recent revelations of the harm being caused by so many of the diabetes drugs crowding this space.
|
|
|
|
Post by curiousdoc on Sept 14, 2015 15:20:04 GMT -5
Meta analysis is NOT regarded at the top of anyone's evidence based medicine. That's an absurd statement. Meta analysis is an aggregate of many studies almost always slightly different. It's as close as you can get to "I couldn't really do the study so I took numbers from 14 other studies and ran some statistical analysis on them". What a joke. Try a double blind randomized prospective study. That would be regarded highly in evidence based medicine. I AM a practicing physician. I'm with Al on this one. Don't let a meta analysis get you in a tizzy. Any study is obviously dependent on the data. Double blind randomized studies are the best prospective studies, yes. And a meta-analysis of several well done double blind study would still trump each individual study in weight of evidence because every study has inherent biases/flaws. They are also the only way to get true scale of patients into the 100s of thousands of study subjects without prohibitive cost. To call them a joke is a gross exaggeration. |
|
|
|
Post by peppy on Sept 14, 2015 17:09:02 GMT -5
Meta analysis is NOT regarded at the top of anyone's evidence based medicine. That's an absurd statement. Meta analysis is an aggregate of many studies almost always slightly different. It's as close as you can get to "I couldn't really do the study so I took numbers from 14 other studies and ran some statistical analysis on them". What a joke. Try a double blind randomized prospective study. That would be regarded highly in evidence based medicine. I AM a practicing physician. I'm with Al on this one. Don't let a meta analysis get you in a tizzy. Any study is obviously dependent on the data. Double blind randomized studies are the best prospective studies, yes. And a meta-analysis of several well done double blind study would still trump each individual study in weight of evidence because every study has inherent biases/flaws. They are also the only way to get true scale of patients into the 100s of thousands of study subjects without prohibitive cost. To call them a joke is a gross exaggeration. All is right with the world. People see things differently. |
|
|
|
Post by jgv on Sept 15, 2015 0:07:29 GMT -5
Meta analysis is NOT regarded at the top of anyone's evidence based medicine. That's an absurd statement. Meta analysis is an aggregate of many studies almost always slightly different. It's as close as you can get to "I couldn't really do the study so I took numbers from 14 other studies and ran some statistical analysis on them". What a joke. Try a double blind randomized prospective study. That would be regarded highly in evidence based medicine. I AM a practicing physician. I'm with Al on this one. Don't let a meta analysis get you in a tizzy. Any study is obviously dependent on the data. Double blind randomized studies are the best prospective studies, yes. And a meta-analysis of several well done double blind study would still trump each individual study in weight of evidence because every study has inherent biases/flaws. They are also the only way to get true scale of patients into the 100s of thousands of study subjects without prohibitive cost. To call them a joke is a gross exaggeration. It's a joke for anyone to give that particular meta analysis any significant credence as its based on noninferiority studies. It's of exceptionally low value. And "no" you can't generalize and say that a meta analysis would trump any one study without sighting specifics. It's a ridiculous statement. You can't just "say things" and thereby they are true because you uttered them. |
|
