Suggest a topic for research - page 6
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Don't mix in the same puddle of unscrupulous pharmacists who hide their shoddiness behind scientific formulas from biostatistics, and evidence-based medicine, which is a standard in normal countries not because it benefits someone, but because only in this form it can be considered science.
And you still, at least for the sake of self-education, start by asking what specific methods the so-called "evidence-based" medicine is based on, before you say anything here. Well, for greater certainty, try any "scientific discovery" made in this most so-called "evidence-based" medicine, ask those who in its framework something "scientifically proven", the original data. For withholding original data, on the basis of which a "scientific" discovery was made, is the first sign of charlatanism, since it contradicts the scientific method in terms of public scepticism. In "evidence-based" medicine, they do not just hide the raw data, but because there is something to hide.
Only that which corresponds to the scientific method is considered science, not generalized statistical "conclusions" drawn from something secret and secret and which can only be taken at face value.
For example, in this forum no one will believe you at your word that you have a super-trumpy TS, until you provide access to raw data in the form of: investment password or link to PAMM.
Why in the world would I, for example, buy a patented medicine in a pharmacy and believe that its efficacy has been "proven" by some biostatistics covered by the fig leaf of "evidence-based" medicine?
So as not to return to a topic that is out of line for this forum and not to discuss quackery in "evidence-based" medicine, I advise you to look up "Confessions of a Heretic of Medicine" by Robert Mendelsohn on the internet. At the very least, it is written by a former physician and medical researcher who has previously dealt with the very standards accepted in "normal" countries that you refer to as the ultimate truth.
Good evening!
Comrades prompt with an interesting ( and not too heavy topic) theme for research, for the practice. Specialty: mathematical methods and models in economics. MQL as a tool.
And you, at least for the sake of self-education, start by asking which specific methods the so-called "evidence-based" medicine is based on
I know enough, my own wife is a doctor, epidemiologist and a pretty good statistician. I taught her a lot myself and still advise her on mathematics. And she works and learns both there and here, has personally seen for myself from the inside many of our and their research, and is well aware of the extent of quackery there and there. You can try to give them a comparative assessment of people's health (I'll give you a hint: our health is p.zd.tsor, and where there is evidence-based medicine is much better, and people live 25 years longer on average, and in some places 35 years longer).
No school will teach you how to do that. Since it is not given, it never will be.
School can only further develop the taste for thinking - but only if this ability has already been developed from the outset.
No school will teach you how to do that. Since it is not given, it never will be.
School can only further develop the taste for thinking - but only if this ability has already been developed from the outset.
School (secondary, higher) should teach how to acquire knowledge and use it properly.
I know enough, my own wife is a doctor, an epidemiologist and not a bad statistician. I taught her a lot myself and still advise her on mathematics. And she works and learns both there and here, has personally seen for myself from the inside many of our and their research, and is well aware of the extent of quackery there and there. You can try to give them a comparative assessment of people's health (I'll give you a hint: our health is p.zd.tsor, and where there is evidence-based medicine is much better, and people live 25 years longer on average, and in some places 35 years longer).
Have a rest. In one post you said that you should not confuse "evidence-based" medicine and biostatistics, and now suddenly it turns out that you are an expert in biostatistics and you do it all.
Watch your mouth, as they say. Or at least wink when you want to say something.
And about "evidence" of modern medical research, LeoV says about such "evidence" correctly: "It's written on the fence too. Only it is not there".
Tell that tale to the authors and publishers of refereed journals, maybe they will believe it.
The main problem of Russian higher education is precisely that it does not teach people to think, does not teach them to generate new ideas. They give us an excellent mathematical apparatus, a bunch of useless methods by themselves and say: "well done, now you are a real physicist/mathematician/econometrist!" - but all such a physicist/mathematician/econometrist can do is mindlessly stir up data balls in his head with abstruse algorithms and generate white noise at the output.
Suppose you are a school principal (rector of an institute, university, academy), you can do everything (they are financially, legislatively and administratively limited in what they can do).
The question for you is: what will you do?
Eh, Yuri, you can't deny the obvious. Our medicine sucks, and maybe it will get even worse...
Recently I read the regional health development programme for 3 years, and there are plans(!) to increase infant mortality... apparently, the economy will be saved by human sacrifice...
No school will teach you how to do that. Since it is not given, it never will be.
School can only further develop a taste for thinking - but only if this ability has already been developed from the outset.
At our first classes after entering the institute, the head of our future graduate department came to us and said: we will not teach you knowledge - we will teach you to think properly. And we did it for five years.
In the 90s I thought that this education died under the thrashing at the trough with lentil stew. But in the mid-2000s I had the good fortune to see that it wasn't. Among the huge number of commercial groups I taught there were two budget groups (statisticians, by the way) who were taught to think properly as I was in my youth.
Not everything has been wiped out. Something remains.