Miller & Miller on "Evidence, Medical & Legal"

We've been alerted to an article by Donald W. Miller, Jr., M.D., and Clifford G. Miller, Esq., in the Fall 2005 edition of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, entitled "On Evidence, Medical and Legal." Among the authors' observations:

In practice, Daubert is vulnerable to manifold corruptions resulting in relevant reliable evidence being systematically excluded in favor of the less reliable. Daubert rules do not correct erroneous theories that have become accepted medical thinking, including theories about what evidence is reliable. Editors can subvert peer review by selecting only reviewers who will reject papers that run counter to or praise papers that support the interests of journal's advertisers or its owners. Lines of independent research contradicting conventional wisdom can systemically remain unpublished.

Such hard-to-publish research may prove that what the scientific community generally accepts as correct is, in fact, wrong. Research follows the funding, resulting in a wealth of publications favoring the funding interests. This can have a disproportionate effect on the weight of evidence, especially for epidemiologic evidence in court.

. . . .

With regard to uncommonly occurring and rare events like adverse drug reactions and vaccine-induced autism, judges need to realize that a CDR [challenge/ de-challenge/re-challenge] case report and CD [challenge/de-challenge] case series alone can prove causation to a very high standard. Courts will be informed of apposite evidence of this kind if, and only if, evidence in medicine and medical science does the informing.

Well worth reading.