From the article:
“The current approach to medicine is "evidence-based." This sounds obvious but, in practice, it means relying on a few large-scale studies and statistical techniques to choose the treatment for each patient. Practitioners of EBM (Evidence-based Medicine) incorrectly call this process using the "best evidence." In order to restore the authority for decision-making to individual doctors and patients, we need to challenge this orthodoxy, which is no easy task. Remember Linus Pauling: despite being a scientific genius, he was condemned just for suggesting that vitamin C could be a valuable therapeutic agent [emphasis mine –dmiwench].”
“Historically, physicians, surgeons and scientists with the courage to go against prevailing ideas have produced medical breakthroughs. Examples include William Harvey's theory of blood circulation (1628), which paved the way for modern techniques such as cardiopulmonary bypass machines; James Lind's discovery that limes prevent scurvy (1747); John Snow's work on transmission of cholera (1849); and Alexander Fleming's discovery of penicillin (1928). Not one of these innovators used EBM. [emphasis mine –dmiwench] Rather, they followed the scientific method, using small, repeatable experiments to test their ideas. Sadly, practitioners of modern EBM have abandoned the traditional experimental method, in favor of large group statistics.”
“The basic approach of medicine must be to treat patients as unique individuals, with distinct problems. This extends to biochemistry and genetics. An effective and scientific form of medicine would apply pattern recognition, rather than regular statistics. It would thus meet the requirements of being a good regulator; in other words, it would be an effective approach to the prevention and treatment of disease. It would also avoid traps, such as the ecological fallacy.” [link added by me – dmiwench]
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/238657-Evidence-Based-Medicine-Neither-Good-Evidence-nor-Good-Medicine
