Among the findings of interest are the fact that the FDA rejected the application for gabapentin for diabetic peripheral neuropathy based on the risk versus benefit profile of that drug in the clinical trials that were submitted by the manufacturer. Additionally, both the comparative effectiveness trials as well as the studies used by the FDA tend to be short in duration and show only modest pain benefits for the gabapentinoids. The placebo response in these trials was frequently one-third to one-half as great as the pain benefit demonstrated by the gabapentinoid.
The psychosomatic approach to medically unexplained symptoms, myalgic encephalomyelitis and chronic fatigue syndrome (MUS/ME/CFS) is critically reviewed using scientific criteria. Based on the 'Biopsychosocial Model', the psychosomatic theory proposes that patients' dysfunctional beliefs, deconditioning and attentional biases cause or make illness worse, disrupt therapies, and lead to preventable deaths. The evidence reviewed suggests that none of these psychosomatic hypotheses is empirically supported. The lack of robust supportive evidence together with the use of fal-lacious causal assumptions, inappropriate and harmful therapies, broken scientific principles, repeated methodological flaws and an unwillingness to share data all give the appearance of cargo cult science. The psychosomatic approach needs to be replaced by a scientific, biologically grounded approach to MUS/ME/CFS that can be expected to provide patients with appropriate care and treatments. Patients with MUS/ME/CFS and their families have not been treated with the dignity, respect and care that is their human right. Patients with MUS/ME/CFS and their families could consider a class action legal case against the injuring parties.
Autism researchers are ableist.
The other manipulation of significant is a misuse of the concept of “statistical significance.” When a study looks at an intervention’s outcomes and find that those outcomes are “statistically significant” it simply means that it is more likely that the outcomes are a result of the intervention than that they were the result of chance. So if a study had a statistically significant finding that people using some weight loss method lost 3% of their body weight, that would mean that it was more likely that the small amount of weight loss was due to the weight loss method than that it was by chance. However, if the study conclusion were to say that people lost a “significant amount of weight” when what they meant was that the weight loss was statistically significant, they might mislead people into thinking that “significant” in this case meant “a lot of” weight.