• muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        3 months ago

        I dont really care what the practising doctors say i care what the published peer reviewed docters say i they say its ineffective at achieving its goals of reduced harm.

    • eskimofry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      You think you’re more qualified than a doctor to assess whether a kid is capable of making bodily decisions? You can only speak for yourself.

        • eskimofry@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          You’re still nowhere near the expertise of doctors who go through nedical school for a decade or more and some even write papers for those peer reviewed journals. And some of their doctor peers review those papers before publishing journals.

          Nobody is going to listen to you or some insurance company bean counter about medical advice over a qualified medical professional. They certainly should make it illegal for insurance companies to deny care contradicting doctors.

          • muntedcrocodile@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 months ago

            If there is anyone who knows anything it is the insurance companies. Thats their literal job to calculate the risks of something costly with heigh accuracy so they can put a price on it thus distributing a large single cost across many people as a small regular cost. If an insurance company doeant want to do somthing hiatory would tell us there is a damn good reason why.

        • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          Yes, you have already been shown by others why your meta-study, which predates the study the article I linked to discusses, is both faulty and doesn’t make the argument you think it makes.

          You should be aware that when new information replaces old information in science, you should defer to the new information. You are doing the opposite.