Chapter 1: An Examination of JAMA's Claims

In recent discussions, JAMA (Journal of the American Medical Association) made headlines with their assertion that marijuana could serve as a substitute for opioids, an idea that sparked significant skepticism.

As if that wasn't enough, they have now released a study that appears to undermine their credibility further. Dr. Josh Bloom, an expert in the field of opioids, takes a critical look at this so-called "study" in his article on asch.org. Titled “An Opioid Study So Bad That It Disproves Itself?” the piece is a must-read for anyone questioning the validity of JAMA's research.

Dr. Bloom's observations are striking. He notes:

"Here’s a first. A study that might actually disprove itself. I’ve never seen anything like it."

This raises an eyebrow—could Andrew Kolodny be involved in this mess? The paper from JAMA Open Network attempts to ride the anti-opioid wave but ultimately fails, leaving readers in disbelief.

The objective of the study is clear: to link increased pharmaceutical funding with higher rates of opioid prescriptions and subsequent overdose deaths. While this correlation seems intuitive, it is not necessarily accurate.

The research team, primarily from Boston Medical Center, analyzed data from 67,507 physicians across 2,208 counties from August 1, 2013, to December 31, 2015. They concluded that increased funding from drug companies correlates with a rise in overdose deaths over the study's timeline.

Section 1.1: Data Analysis and Misinterpretation

Let’s delve into their findings by examining Table 2, which evaluates the relationship between pharmaceutical funding and overdose fatalities using three distinct measurement models.

The study categorized pharmaceutical funding into marketing dollars (A), the number of physician payments (B), and the number of physicians receiving payments (C). Each model indicated a relative risk (RR) for increased fatalities ranging from 1.09 to 1.18, suggesting a 9-18% rise in death rates.

Dr. Stan Young, an advisor and biostatistics expert, provides a grounded perspective:

"The observed increase is so minimal that any bias, such as age, race, or socioeconomic factors, could easily negate it."

Section 1.2: The Disconnect Between Prescriptions and Deaths

Now, let's refer to Table 3, which reveals that increased pharmaceutical funding leads to a notable rise in prescriptions written by physicians—a finding that should not be surprising.

When we combine these two conclusions, we can infer that while more pharmaceutical funding results in a significant increase in prescriptions, the corresponding rise in overdose deaths is minimal, if existent at all.

Thus, it stands to reason that prescribed opioids are not the primary cause of overdose deaths, a claim that advocates for patients have long maintained.

Chapter 2: The Media's Role in Spreading Misinformation

This video titled "Sugar: THE BITTER TRUTH" delves into the broader implications of how misinformation can propagate in the media, similar to the flawed narratives surrounding opioids.

In another discussion, "Bermuda Triangle Mysteries: Supernatural Or Science?" explores the allure of sensational claims, which can be likened to the media's sensational coverage of opioid studies.

Returning to the subject at hand, the authors of the JAMA study seem to have set out to prove a point but may have ended up supporting the opposite. One must wonder if they are aware of this contradiction or simply hope their audience will overlook it.

Ultimately, it's disheartening to see flawed studies gain traction, especially when they can have significant ramifications on public perception and policy. As we navigate this complex landscape, it is crucial to remain vigilant and informed.