|
Home
|
|
Symptoms
|
|
Live Discussion
|
|
Diagnosis
|
|
Treatment
|
|
Area Support
|
|
Library
|
|
Research
|
|
Lymelinks
|
|
Contact
|
|
Pets & Lyme
|
|
DONATIONS
|
|
Drug Info
|
|
Medical Dictionary
|
|
Board of Directors
|
|
|
No Warranties or Representations
The data and information presented in this web site are presented in good faith and believed to be accurate. Any and all liability for the content or any omissions including any inaccuracies, errors, or misstatements in such data or information is expressly disclaimed. The web site is compiled for the sole purpose of informing community members of resources and information pertaining to Lyme Borreliosis Disease and its coinfections.
The Canadian Lyme Disease Foundation, Directors and members are not liable for any direct or indirect damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this website.
Consult a qualified Lyme ( Borreliosis ) Disease literate doctor for medical advice if Lyme Disease is suspect.
|
August 31, 2005
"On Evidence, Medical and Legal"
A new study by US Professor Donald W. Miller MD and British lawyer Clifford G. Miller
As sent on UK Press Association Newswire service Aug 31, 8:45 GMT:
EMBARGO 1/SEPT/2005 - As released on PA wire service
London, England & Seattle USA 31 August: A new study by US Professor Donald W Miller MD and British lawyer Clifford G. Miller in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Fall issue shows that valid legal claims of victims injured by medications can, unlike the Vioxx case in Texas USA, be blocked or systematically rejected by expert evidence based on flawed but accepted medical thinking. Courts depend on experts when deciding what causes injuries.
Medicine adverse reactions affect 40% of patients; kill 1:1000 inpatients; 1:10,000 surgical patients; cause 5% of annual UK hospital admissions. Claims blocked include child vaccine and pharmaceutical mercury victims.
The study shows experts can:
- dismiss evidence that could prove the victim’s case;
- rely on biased government and drug company funded research;
- refer to official statements and reports which make the same mistakes.
Dr D Miller, Professor of Surgery University of Washington School of Medicine said:
- "We demonstrate current 'evidence-based medicine' practice is flawed and over-reliant on epidemiology. It discards or downgrades important evidence, including eye witness testimony so fundamental in legal cases. Epidemiology is not 'science'. Its findings are not irrefutable.
Investigators can manipulate epidemiologic statistics to produce results favouring the view officials paying for a study want. In medicine there are other kinds of evidence that, placed in a 'factual matrix', have probative value. A recent University of Washington study, for example, shows parents are reliable witnesses when reporting their children developed normally before regressing and becoming autistic. Medicine has a lot of catching up to do in how it treats evidence.
Co-author, Clifford Miller, British commercial lawyer, former university law lecturer, and graduate physicist, London, England said:
"Whilst medicine can be sophisticated, it is not science but tries too hard to be. Aspects of its evidential practices are stone age compared to other fields. Some UK and US judges and lawyers are knowledgeable about medicine, but must rely on expert testimony when deciding cases. Expert opinions based on flawed practices can cause injustices.”
|
| | |
