Dec 032012

Epistemonikos es un motor de búsqueda de literatura científica, cuyo objetivo es promover el uso de la mejor evidencia disponible en la toma de decisiones clínicas y de política sanitaria. Tiene la sencillez de Google y está disponible en varios idiomas. Fundado por investigadores y desarrolladores chilenos, se ha transformado en un proyecto con integrantes de diferentes partes del globo. 

Si deseas saber más, el Dr. Gabriel Rada, director del proyecto, ofrece una descripción detallada aquí.

  • Maria

    Looks like the pot calling the kettle black. Andrew Wakefield has been consistently supported and defended by the parents of the children he treated. If you read the online explanations on his side you might see that he has consistently tried to be balanced, but the more he saw the evidence the more he saw the need to tell the truth. And even if he did apply for a patent, it is no different than the doctors who are linked with the drug companies financially. They would be biased also.

    • Anonymous

      Thanks for your comment Maria.

      Could you please post some links to the explanations you cite so that people can follow up on this?

      You are right in that there are other situations in which doctors have benefitted in a similar way by promoting particular treatments in their research. At TTi we will always hope to draw attention to them.

      There are other examples in “Research – good, bad and unnecessary”

      • Sansome

        Are scientists/Drs ever funded independently? Is there ever a case where we can categorically and ethically say that there was no vested interest or bias?

        • Douglas_Badenoch

          Good question Sansome. “Funded independently” could be an oxymoron. Allegiance biases can also frame judgments. All the more reason to be transparent about vested interests, and to consider the extent of potential biases. There’s a good resource about biases here:

  • Dr. Amy Price

    My heart goes out to all the parents that have suffered because of the scarcity of good research on Autism and the concerns about autism and vaccines. I have a grand child who is severely autistic, we don’t think vaccines were responsible and neither do his wonderful parents or his sister. It is so hard to have an uncertain future and no clear answers. I do not know Andrew Wakefield but it seems to me that whatever he says it has not answered the questions that matter. In areas of low vaccines there are no lower rates of autism just more dead or disabled children.

    Wouldn’t it be great if patients could do their own valid research, get it published and learn how to understand research for themselves instead of having to depend on expert opinion only?

    We are working on this at ThinkWell. The British Medical Journal is setting up a program where patients/the public can become reviewers and NHS choices has opened commentary on papers. It is time to bring plain language to the forefront as 50% of papers are now Open Access according to a blog by Hilda Bastion in Scientific American.

    The public can offer insight into areas that trials are not equipped for and this is valuable. It is important not to waste precious energy looking at where to level blame but rather what are ways we can solve unmet research questions.

    Quite a few years ago physicians were also disrupted by a lack of evidence and patient values in their work and decided to look at evidence based medicine. The history of what these doctors and scientists experienced is very similar to what patients and the public struggle with today. See what you think and

    It might help to read the free Testing Treatments Book to see how evidence is formed, used and abused, I think there is not much about vaccines in there but it is a great tool to sharpen skills and it is easy for anyone to read with real life examples. You can get this by going to the book tab above.

  • Wayne Stobbe

    I don’t think we can ignore Wakefields vested interest in creating a single MMR vaccine. I also don’t think we can ignore the Brian Deer lied about the fact the Wakefield committed fraud and that his superior John Walker smith who was funded to appeal (Wakefield was not) was completely exonorated.

    • Douglas_Badenoch

      Thanks Wayne.

    • The Grief

      Brian Deer lied about the fact the Wakefield committed fraud

      No he didn’t.

      his superior John Walker smith who was funded to appeal (Wakefield was not) was completely exonorated.

      Irrelevant. John Walker Smith was not guilty of Wakefield’s crimes. Wakefield could have appealed; he was not lacking money. He chose not to appeal because he knew he could not win. Even his medical insurance company told him this.

      • pedrodelavega

        “Even his medical insurance company told him this.”

        do you have a source for this statement?