Hi Roy et al, I've read the paper today and found it readable and pertinent. I've been a UK GP for a large number of years and work in a deprived inner city, have an MSc in health sciences and clinical evaluation and have taught EBM. I agree with the paper, in the UK we have edicts from NICE telling us what to do with our patients, we are even financially rewarded for measuring all sorts of things, I am told that I 'should' now be screening diabetics for depression now (never mind the opportunity cost for what else I could do with that time), we 'should' be getting blood pressures below this and that, research papers still distort the truth a) by quoting relative risk reductions and b) by asking research questions that assume longevity is the gold standard and b) giving undue weight to confidence intervals bolstered by the internal consistency of the paper's stats, and c) assuming that just because a risk can be calculated that it is somehow accurate when we know that's a myth. Maybe most doctors just like to be told what to do and to be given a cookery book of recipes to follow. In my experience of teaching primary care doctors and nurse how to calculate risk, this isn't something they will do in the course of routine work, they just want to be told who to prescribe what to. They have often in fact stopped thinking about what they are doing. The public health specialists I've spoken to don't see individual risk communication as important, "Thats your problem" they say to me, a GP. Eminent epidemiologists have hailed the concept of the 'polypill' ignoring the implication that the majority of the over 40s will be pathologised and labelled as 'ill', with false expectations of what medicine can deliver fostering dependence, the EBM movement has embraced and imposed colonic cancer screening but the papers have inadequately measured changing health beliefs and the emotional adverse effects . I accept that EBM and the controlled trial has achieved a huge amount especially in therapeutics, but I suspect the current mania for 'preventitive' treatment and screening is doing more harm than good in preventitive medicine terms, and I am keen to avoid doing harm. I agree with the paper that the discourse of EBM is 'dominating' with its moral overtones, and that this does actively discourage and exclude alternative views, and the term fascism may feel nasty because of its historical connotations but I feel it is in fact justified. It feels especially healthy to have these sort of ideas aired, I feel they should be taken seriously. Just read a few of the editorials in the BMJ, look closely at the language and the way its coercive intent on clinicians. This paper in fact feels overdue. As a way forward, I think we should take a step back, research findings should be presented more neutrally, the adverse effects of screening for example should be explored in more depth, family practitioners should have more freedom to decide for themselves what treatments feel worthwhile without being incentivised to follow the rule of EBM edicts like sheep, we should enable and introduce more variability and innovation not seek to remove it. Owen Owen Dempsey GP ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roy Poses" <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 4:21 PM Subject: Fwd: RE: Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences I now have actually read the paper below, a very painful process. The issue is not "elaborate" language, although the paper is written in the usual turgid post-modernist style, with all the expected bowing and scraping to Foucault, Derrida, Lyotard, Deleuze, Guttari, etc, the tortured sentence structures, and the obscure ("interpellated"), and sometimes made-up words ("hysterisation"). The paper makes some accusations which in a way are hilarious. In my personal experience, it has been hard to get EBM related concepts into medical education, and to get funding for EBM related scholarly work. Yet Holmes et al accuse EBM of being so powerful that "in a number of faculties of health sciences ... the dominant paradigm of EBHS [evidence-based health science] has achieved hegemony." I have never seen such an institution. Instead, in most medical schools that I have seen, EBM advocates are a minority, sometimes embattled. Holmes et al also asserted that EBM advocates get "institutional promotions and accolades, public recognition, and state contracts of all kinds." Huh? Boy, I sure have missed out, and so have many of my friends and colleagues. (To add further irony, Holmes at all sort of got one of those "state contracts of all kinds." Their paper was funded by the Canadian government, through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research- Institute of Gender and Health.) But the paper goes from hilarious to nasty (which is why I don't believe that it was a hoax or a parody). The paper literally accuses advocates of evidence based health of being fascists, and accuses the Cochrane Collaboration of being a fascist organization, "The classification of scientific evidence as proposed by the Cochrane Group thus constitutes not only a powerful mechanism of exclusion for some types of knowledge, it also acts as an organising structure for knowledge and a mechanism of ideological reinforcement for the dominant scientific paradigm. In that sense, it obeys a fascist logic." Furthermore, "fascism is not too strong a word because the exclusion of knowledge ensembles relies on a process that is saturated by ideology and intolerance regarding other ways of knowing." (Read the paper, if you can stand it, to find many more examples beyond these quotes.) A final thought ... This paper suggests another possible explanation of why academic health care institutions have been so ineffective in challenging some of the real threats to our professional values (of the sort we have documented on Health Care Renewal, http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/) Perhaps they have been distracted by post-modernism's incomprehensible word-play, cults of personality, and now its wild accusations against EBM, one of the only movements which tries to determine what really works in health care, unbiased by commercial and ideological concerns. Then the question arises: Has post-modernism been deliberately encouraged by some academic leaders, possibly those with the most severe conflicts of interest, to distract us from concentration and abuse of power in health care, the pervasiveness of conflicts of interests in health care organizations, and unethical and even illegal behavior by health care leaders? >Dear All, >well, the language is elaborate, but the ideas aren't really that >outrageous. They seem to be saying that any group defines and promotes what >it considers are norms for behaviour/thinking etc. and this inevitably >excludes certain ways of doing things which can unwittingly have >disadvantages. I think many EMBers are well aware of this. >Michael > > >-----Original Message----- >From: Evidence based health (EBH) on behalf of Roy Poses >Sent: Mon 8/21/2006 4:51 PM >To: [log in to unmask] >Cc: >Subject: FW: Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health >sciences > >(Sent with apologies to my good friends and colleagues at the University of >Ottawa who have been steadfastly been aiding the development of >evidence-based medicine.... These colleagues had nothing to do with the >paper mentioned below....) > >The following email has been circulating. > >It describes a mind-bendingly post-modern paper, published in a seemingly >respectable health care journal, which likens proponents of evidence-based >medicine to fascists. > >The paper is real, and is available on the web. The abstract below is >representative. As best as I can tell, the paper was not a hoax of a >satire. > >It seems to be an example, albeit perhaps isolated, of where the march of >post-modernism in academia may lead.... > > > >>This (link to pdf below) is a recent paper which I first took to be a > >>hoax. > >>Apparently they are serious... > >> > >>Newspeak rating: Doubleplus ungood. > >> > >>"Deconstructing the evidence-based discourse in health sciences: truth, > >>power and fascism" > >>- Dave Holmes RN PhD,1 Stuart J Murray PhD,2 Amélie Perron RN > >>PhD(cand)1 and Geneviève Rail PhD1 > >>1 Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing, University of Ottawa, > >>Ottawa, and 2 Department of English, Ryerson University Toronto, > >>Ontario, > >>Canada. > >> >[snip] > >>http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/holmes-deconstruction-ebhc-06.pdf > >>Or: > >>http://tinyurl.com/fdbry > >> > >>Some comments on this paper- > >>The Quack Page (under 'worse than Barry'): > >>http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#holmes1 > >>badscience.net: > >>http://www.badscience.net/?p=277 > > > Roy M. Poses MD Clinical Associate Professor Brown University School of Medicine <[log in to unmask]> -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.10.10/419 - Release Date: 15/08/2006