It's not a small problem in Canada. Funny was this patient who got rear ended like 8 times in a few years and needed time off and massage treatment every time.
Shameless grifters are everywhere my dude. This victimhood grifiting in the article above has been obvious for over a decade. If you listened to those anecdotes and vibes you would have known this well in advanced.
Anecdotal stuff / vibes are actually really useful. The "scientific" stuff isn't as formal as you might imagine. Going to conferences is a good way to learn that the vibes are what you are going to learn.
You'd think science is supposed to be this amazing rigorous way to do things. But the way you collect the data and the way you do the analysis and the reports you choose to write is anything but. Ultimately because, well, grifters are everywhere.
This seems … reasonable? Car crashes are the leading cause of life-altering injuries in North America and back pain is notoriously hard to prove to the point that a hostile audience can’t say they’re overstated. If you look at case studies from the American opioid crisis, a disturbing number of them start with someone getting in a road or workplace accident and not having a full pain management regimen.
You don't even need a study to prove you wrong, it should be common sense that being rear ended has a good chance of causing chronic neck injuries, let alone 8 of them. But I got you numbers anyway:
> NP pain is common after involvement in a motor vehicle collision (MVC) with 86% of injured occupants reporting NP pain.6 In Ontario 17.6% of those exposed to an MVC report a personal injury...
> Neck injury resulting from an MVC is associated with a high rate of chronicity. Prognosis studies indicate 50% of injured people continue to experience NP a year after the collision.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6899867/
> Anecdotal stuff / vibes are actually really useful.
You can just say you've already made up your mind despite not having personal experience, your anecdotes being biased, and having no statistically relevant evidence - and nothing will change your mind.
Don't waste people's time pretending to be genuine and poison the intellectual well by trying to normalize "feelings based reality".
> When you are know a doctor and overhear conversations with some ranting doctor friends you learn.
What a joke. If a retail worker serves 300 people in a day and then comes home and complains about some guy who yelled at them, it doesn't mean that there's an epidemic of people yelling. That person is 0.3% of interactions but will make up 100% of the complaints because they stood out
You don't even seen to have the gall of asking the doctors youry eavesdropping on if they concur, because surely that would have been your evidence instead.
>> Anecdotal stuff / vibes are actually really useful.
> You can just say you've already made up your mind despite not having personal experience, your anecdotes being biased, and having no statistically relevant evidence - and nothing will change your mind.
I absolutely can and do change my mind, lots of times. I'm not an old fart set in his ways. What I'm saying is that there is an overcorrection towards this "intellectual well" way of thinking. It's not that statistics is useless, it's that someone telling you of an issue based on vibes / personal experience, or from a single sample is useful even if editors would desk reject it.
It's as though people behave as the numbers in papers come from God instead of a study done with limitations by people who have agendas and make mistakes. It can be right, I love good papers, and despite what you might have concluded actually I love rigor, mathematics in particular is amazing, but when you also take the approach of rejecting any story or opinion because a stat said so (often ignoring how that stat may have been collected or data analysed), this is where problems happen.