We know doctors can get it. We know that they can, in principle, know how to read a scientific paper.
@alex3619 I'm afraid I'm not sure of that at all. I'm currently reading "Risk Savvy" by Gerd Gigerenzer, which I can throughly recommend. He discusses how many doctors practise defensive medicine, don't understand health statistics, and pursue profit instead of the patients' best interests. I always used to assume that good doctors were people who respected and understood the science, but it seems there is a gulf between biologists / researchers and doctors, which goes right back to what they are taught / not taught as students.
One has the right to answer infactual articles in the u.k? (and what do you call this right, I forgot)
@Marky90 I've spent the last two days standing in the classroom with a blank mind when students ask me questions, not even a mental thread to pull on to get the information / word they're asking for, no point in me even trying to think about it. So I'm very proud to actually know something this time - "factually incorrect" is what you're looking for. I was teaching a lawyer yesterday and couldn't remember the words "on probation" or "legacy" - this morning I didn't know the word "extensive". How long I can carry on as a teacher like this I really don't know, I live in constant fear of my cover being blown.
From Joh Cohen's Science article:
In the follow-up, a team led by psychiatrist Michael Sharpe of the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom sent questionnaires to 604 of the trial participants and asked them to self-rate their health. The 481 participants who responded reflected a statistically valid sample of the patients who received the four interventions.
This could reflect a statistically valid sample, or losing track of 20% of the sample could mean that 124 patients wanted nothing further to do with the study, or had died.
The authors suggest that this is because the people in the ineffective groups later decided to seek out graded exercise and cognitive behavior therapy.
Any evidence for that, or is it just based on wishful thinking / bullshit speculation by the authors, which they felt justified in throwing in with their "evidence"?