<sigh> (At the article, not you
![Smile :) :)]()
)
The “what do you have to lose” attitude is worrisome. We had a joke in school: death is always a possible side effect. But it’s true. In the medical world, even oxygen is considered a drug. Too much, too little, given under the wrong circumstances—can all lead to less-than-optimal outcomes.
You just can’t take one look at a drug, without extensive and methodological study, and declare it a miracle-worker. The rules are there for a reason. And even then, there are usually circumstances that haven’t been anticipated. They are already making allowances and relaxing regulations to expedite new or repurposed therapies in this state of emergency. But there’s a threshold before it becomes unsafe and the risk outweighs the benefit.
Additionally, data, studies, experiments, etc—they’re great, but you have to understand the context, condition, method, and much more in order to draw a legitimate conclusion. It’s incredibly tempting—especially under pressure—to cherrypick favorable data to support your claim. And no one is immune to that. It’s human nature. But you must be aware of it and mitigate it, especially when you have lives that depend on it.
Jmo
One of my favorite discoveries, that shows (often humorous) examples of how appearances can be deceiving in data analysis, is this site:
Spurious Correlations
Enjoy