EBM's and RCT: Doubt, Scientism and unquestioned Ideologies

[Full post moved to other blog.]

update 8-Apr-2012: Quotes from "Evidence-Based Medicine: Neither Good Evidence nor Good Medicine" by Steve Hickey, PhD and Hilary Roberts, PhD.

• The current approach to medicine is "evidence-based." This sounds obvious but, in practice, it means relying on a few large-scale studies and statistical techniques to choose the treatment for each patient. Practitioners of EBM incorrectly call this process using the "best evidence."
• Significant Does Not Mean Important...
• Large trials are powerful methods for detecting small differences.
• There is a further problem with the dangerous assertion implicit in EBM that large-scale studies are the best evidence for decisions concerning individual patients.
• As we have mentioned, EBM restricts variety to what it considers the "best evidence."
• A doctor who arrives at a correct diagnosis and treatment in an efficient manner is called, in cybernetic terms, a good regulator. 
• According to Roger Conant and Ross Ashby, every good regulator of a system must be a model of that system. Good regulators achieve their goal in the simplest way possible.
• In order to achieve this, the diagnostic processes must model the systems of the body, which is why doctors undergo years of training in all aspects of medical science.
• In addition, each patient must be treated as an individual.
• EBM's group statistics are irrelevant, since large-scale clinical trials do not model an individual patient and his or her condition, they model a population-albeit somewhat crudely.
• They are thus not good regulators.
• Once again, a rational patient would reject EBM as a poor method for finding an effective treatment for an illness.
• Diagnosing medical conditions is challenging, because we are each biochemically individual.
•  As explained by an originator of this concept, nutritional pioneer Dr. Roger Williams,
• "Nutrition is for real people. Statistical humans are of little interest."

---

The Friends of Doctors espouse an uncritical Ideological belief in a simplistic doctrine:

Evidence Based Medicine is the only source of Good Science and hence Good Medicine.
All else is, by definition, irrelevant, invalid and, at worst, quackery.

Which is a variation on Scientism, "the universal applicability of the scientific method and approach".

In 1898 you might've excused a Great Expert from declaring "We know everything and have invented everything" [paraphrased] - but in the 21st Century, for anyone to have the arrogance and hubris to make universal/absolute statements that are not dissimilar is unbelievable.
Doubly so, if like FoSiM, they hold themselves up as Great Experts (Professors with many awards and decades of experience).

I have a very specific objection to the FoSiM position, roughly, EBM/RCT's are OK as far as they go, but are far from being the only thing:

RCT's are a necessary, but not sufficient, way to gather evidence, but can never provide proof. Popper's "falsification" notion says theories can never be proven, only disprove with 1 counter-example. The source of the economics/finance term "Black Swan" - something completely new and unexpected.

Why would a group of eminent persons go out of their way to make themselves look complete fools, espousing an entrenched and immovable position that is obviously flawed?

The only reasonable answer I can come up with is:

They are fighting a Turf War and using EBM/RCT's as an overwhelming strength with which to beat-up their opponents. But if the opponents start to provide RCT's, then they can either play "Change the Rules" or "Move the Goal Posts" to force the opponents to waste time and resources.

The unreasonable explanation is these folks are uncritically and intractably wedded to the Ideology, "EBM and RCT's are everything".


In summary:

Medical Science uses RCT's because it's the best thing they've got, but belief in them "should be held lightly", they are not infallible nor free of serious deficiencies.

Evidence Based Medicine is a good servant and a poor Master. The emphasis must be on Medicine, not 'Evidence', on providing good patient care and outcomes. Chief of which is focussing on Patient Safety, not the glittering bauble of "efficacy". "First, do NO harm"...