mercredi 20 juin 2018

Insurers incentive patients and suppliers to spend more: where is it the craziest?

You cannot spend more on chemo or heart surgery or stents or hip prosthesis.
On the other hand, you can spend more and more on drugs for everything and on consultation for everything and on imaging especially expensive ones for everything you feel a little bit abnormal.

Insurance works very well for illness but it is deleterious for other issues which are common and don't need any medicine. Health is not brought by the so-called healthcare.

Banking without responsability in the EU

How can some EU banks continue to operate with more than 30% of non-performing loans? Banking in the EU is irresponsible and we saw it previously.

In a near future AI will be able to evaluate a scientific study

"The solution is really very simply. Eliminate all financial conflicts of interest in research. "
You mix up criticism of epidemiological studies with the problem of financial conflicts… It is an error of conception in your paper. Uncertainty linked to epidemiological studies is consubstantial with the data collected in those studies. Nothing to do with financial conflicts. For instance taxpayer money funded a lot of epidemiological studies about nutrition which are of poor value except for Harvard which detains the huge database… 
It is far preferable to rely on randomised control studies funded by private money. And one of the best changes in this field is open data.

I will comment later on other assertions of this paper especially about CABANA study.

Nuclear plants are safe and nuclear electricity production is environmentally healthy



Cette affirmation pose la question de la Constitution en France: Est ce l'obligation de s'affilier ou bien le monopole de la sécu?

lundi 18 juin 2018

GlyphosateGate not an end, another episode

The question is: do Judges have to rule such an issue?

“It is inherently misleading for a warning to state that a chemical is known to the state of California to cause cancer based on the finding of only one organization (International Agency for Research on Cancer—IARC—which only found that substance is probably carcinogenic), when apparently all other regulatory and governmental bodies have found the opposite, including EPA.”

dimanche 17 juin 2018