85% bias is crazyyy 😂
First sentence of the results section says:
“Of the 28 systematic reviews included, only 17.9% were rated as low risk of bias.”
Is this helpful to look at? Why was this even published? lol
Just from the introduction, it is suggesting that the meta analysis is focusing on false positives and improving early detection. It’s not about whether the screening itself is increasing risk.
This is one of my frustrations with the medical field. They begin addressing a problem with a presumption that a certain action is necessary and good (i.e. mammograms). For example, there has never been a long term placebo controlled double blind comparative study on any vaccine ever. And the reason they won’t do it is because they claim it would be unethical to withhold vaccines from the control group. But how is it unethical to withhold an unproven treatment? That means they start with the presumption that vaccines are safe and effective. A lot of what the medical industry does is pseudo science and it’s frustrating.
If you’re aware of any comparative studies regarding vaccines or mammograms please share them with me🫡
MAHDOOD /
npub1gh…eygat
2025-05-03 15:47:02
in reply to nevent1q…37t6
Author Public Key
npub1ghcetnluhryhynhuyj8s2pazldjm27wl40nu6dfeskvpv09twcnsneygatPublished at
2025-05-03 15:47:02Event JSON
{
"id": "aef76bd5d6bc7e711b2dd04986a5ff6cc9d6f374a8b5a19d317417e92660a67f",
"pubkey": "45f195cffcb8c9724efc248f0507a2fb65b579dfabe7cd35398598163cab7627",
"created_at": 1746287222,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"cfe6172bc43c869cf6a36836ed3b5a0d5201322b1b3ecc4088baa720f3a32fd6",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"c4d74c800fef471253dc1388507f7e091e615c80423920d2c760b57b1a4a5121",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"67ada8e344532cbf82f0e702472e24c7896e0e1c96235eacbaaa4b8616052171"
],
[
"p",
"9fce3aea32b35637838fb45b75be32595742e16bb3e4742cc82bb3d50f9087e6"
],
[
"p",
"22f22e98a035b8ff97d4cc4c5b34e65ccecae258430eeca46b17b1e8aabb8a5e"
],
[
"p",
"4bd90daf2320d7417545f53e6e9d2bf1cb345cb83612513fe0dd18bb57068cde"
],
[
"p",
"21335073401a310cc9179fe3a77e9666710cfdf630dfd840f972c183a244b1ad"
],
[
"p",
"cfe3b4316d905335b6ce056ba0ec230b587a334381e82bf9a02a184f2d068f8d"
],
[
"p",
"4f4f82846698ff66ae5fa9fad4c0c4eb7823afb07fa9f54ea9d15f1217ae96cc"
]
],
"content": "85% bias is crazyyy 😂 \n\nFirst sentence of the results section says:\n\n“Of the 28 systematic reviews included, only 17.9% were rated as low risk of bias.” \nIs this helpful to look at? Why was this even published? lol \n\n\nJust from the introduction, it is suggesting that the meta analysis is focusing on false positives and improving early detection. It’s not about whether the screening itself is increasing risk. \n\nThis is one of my frustrations with the medical field. They begin addressing a problem with a presumption that a certain action is necessary and good (i.e. mammograms). For example, there has never been a long term placebo controlled double blind comparative study on any vaccine ever. And the reason they won’t do it is because they claim it would be unethical to withhold vaccines from the control group. But how is it unethical to withhold an unproven treatment? That means they start with the presumption that vaccines are safe and effective. A lot of what the medical industry does is pseudo science and it’s frustrating. \n\nIf you’re aware of any comparative studies regarding vaccines or mammograms please share them with me🫡",
"sig": "f9b7379267990d3cabab9d864524201be675a30802785f0597122d809220d38152e682dbb671f3e24732f74509786c6a1e077a5b003d4920dc227e9fbc476c31"
}