ARNOLD KLING
August 14, 2011
The Top Political Contributors
August 11, 2011
Gender and the New Commanding Heights
August 11, 2011
Jamie Galbraith Makes an Assumption
August 11, 2011
Macroeconometrics: The Science of Hubris
August 10, 2011
Real and Nominal Bond Yields
BRYAN CAPLAN
August 14, 2011
The Effect of Thumb Sucking on Income
August 12, 2011
The Voice of Cold, Hard Truth to All Would-Be Educators
August 12, 2011
Ability, Morality, and Prosperity: A Paper and a Report
August 11, 2011
The Theory of Time and Frittering
August 10, 2011
Male Variance and the Remnants of the Gender Gap
DAVID HENDERSON
August 9, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken", Part Two
August 8, 2011
Hayek in "Unbroken"
August 5, 2011
James Bovard on the Peace Corps
August 4, 2011
Summers Way Off on FDR and 1941
August 3, 2011
The "Amazon" Tax
SHARE
From the Cafe Hayek article:
"Study Finds One-third of Medical Studies are Wrong"
Perhaps the study itself has a 1/3 chance at being wrong....
Wouldn't this imply that you should find a well informed Bayesian physician? The additional information from new studies can't be totally useless (even with such a high error rate), especially if the literature is well-developed, as seems to be the case with most conditions. Even studies of specific treatments seem to be replicated several times.
1, Find a doctor who will confirm that you are sick. (80% of "sick" are imaginary)
2. Go to a hospital with a broad medical staff who talk to each other and therefore have access to maximum knowledge in the least time. and facilities for confirmation.
Why would you think the studies of 30 years ago were any better than those of today?
The doctor to see is the one who directs your medical treatment based on your results, not just study results. The differences between individual response to many drug treatments are significant.