New England Journal of Medicine debates Gun Legislation

[willbrink]

Peter H. Proctor, Ph.D., M.D.

I know Dr Proctor well. He's a good guy. Glad to see he sent in a rebutal to that junk "study."

 

[ArmedBear]

NEJOM and its subscribers are about as qualified to construct and answer this survey as the subscribers of American Rifleman are to answer a survey about the diagnosis and treatment of leukemia.

 

[strat81]

I'd love for someone to point toward any other journal that can compete with the NEJM when it comes to qualifications. Until a more qualified journal can be shown then I see no practical reason why these articles need to go somewhere else.

NEJM is qualified to discuss MEDICAL issues. They are generally NOT qualified to discuss issues related to criminal activity. I don't ask my doctor about shooting stance, gun safety, or concealment methods because that is not his area of expertise. I don't ask my mechanic to diagnose a skin rash and I don't ask the Sheriff to vaccinate me.

When NEJM runs a study about lethality and terminal ballistics of 9mm Luger +P+ hollowpoints versus .45 ACP 200gr +P hollowpoints, I'll pay attention.

 

[ArmedBear]

I don't ask my mechanic to diagnose a skin rash and I don't ask the Sheriff to vaccinate me.

Doctors can be very poor judges of the limits of their own expertise. Not all. Those who are good judges, get my business.

Oh yeah, it's business. I pay for a service. "Doctor" is not and should never be the 21st century equivalent of the medieval Catholic Priest, despite what certain members of the medical profession wish for.

 

[geekWithA.45]

Wacki said:

Geek w/ a 45, can you please show me some of these weekly exercises? If your claim is true then there should be a blog that documents this crap.

Dude, college for me was in the 80's, and I shockingly did not preserve my 20 year old statistics and research methodology homework.

 

[wacki]

strat81,

Not only did you completely sidestep the request/question outlined in BOTH of the sentences you quoted but you made a very incorrect assumption that everyone at the NEJM is a MD. If you read the 3 statements I quoted at least 2 of them have Ph.D.'s.

I guess I can add another question besides suggesting an alternate journal. If a Ph.D. in statistics isn't capable of analyzing this problem, then who is?

 

[ROMAK IV]

If you stick to purely scientific studies, I would agree that it is an excellent journal. They have, however, a long and sordid history of publishing very political and biased "articles".

Just because a study is based on science doesn't make it true. In this study, the study is about public support for certain gun control measures. Whoever performed the study, has already assumed that gun control is desirable and the safety features are as well. Personally, I think most of these measures don't increase gun safety at all, and the magazine disconnect is one real particular annoyance. I also believe that the average person, has little or no idea exactly what those "safety features" involve or actually mean.

Most medical studies are at best "approximations". Drugs are approved based on limtted studies which, even limitted, are arduous and expensive. Yet, even these can't take into account every possible situation. This is part of the problem with the infamous Kellerman study, from which the false quote of the mere presence of a gun is supposed to increase the risk of death by four times. The biggest fallacy of the study involves the fact that is was done similiar to a medical study, that is, studying homocides as a disease to determine risk factors. The problem with this is the huge majority of households that have a gun never have a homicide, but they don't count. Other risk factors that could be even more relevant that a gun, are ignored, like criminal background, history of drug and alcohol use, ect. The impression is given that ordinary people are involved in this, and that a gun is to blame.

 

[nlax2011]

Even as a medical student I take any article (whether randomized double-blind placebo-controlled or just a literature review) with the proverbial grain of salt and have to critically look at the methods, motives, etc.... so you can put it in the proper context.

I haven't looked at this article so I won't comment on it. And the NEJM is one of the leading journals, though I've heard most of the same complaints at times against it that have been expressed here from many people.... MDs, DOs, PhDs, etc..