Political Issues hidden as scientific work - researchers abuse science 

Frequentist, and the hidden rationing agenda

Frequentists are observers of databases, that find differences in frequencies and make remarkable inferences: in medicine, they find higher rates of medical interventions in one place and call that overuse. Frequentist public health has a long tradition starting from Lombroso and Francis Galton, the mathematical father of Eugenics. The frequentist inferior study methodology makes claims about apparently obvious realities, and this creates higher degrees of confusion. It suggests that study designs that truly detect problems based upon GEP criteria can be avoided. Statistical associations become scientifically proven causes.

Frequentist may find, that atherosclerosis protects from death. They rarely find atherosclerosis in people who died young in under developed countries and also in the 18th century, people died young without atherosclerosis. In developed regions such US and Europe people reach higher ages but have a larger amount of atherosclerosis. Therefore, higher amounts of atherosclerosis protect from death. 

Frequentists do not care about scientific standards, when they infer evidence from observations. 
Frequentists are part of a utilitarian rationing movement in health care. Their power increases as does the confusion about the risks and benefits of health care they actively produce.

The Rationing Network 
The rationing network started it's activities in early 1980 with official reports from the SAMW, that rationing is inevitable. From there, member of the SAMW created the Swiss Medical Board SMB and pay for a lot of studies that run under university labels or - by indirect pathways - use register data of health care insureres. The financing of these activites is directly payed for by health care insurers (e.g. CEB, Rosemann, and others) or by the Bangerter Foundation, who gives abundent amount of money directly to the SAMW. These researchers probably know about the inferior quality of observational studies, but they go on to create publications that are designed to prove fraud and abusive medicine without proof. 
We present several publications, which use e.g. medical claims to generate some numbers associated to some variables, which then are interpreted as proof about health care delivery and patient safety problems.        

The problem here is, that using high profile labels (University Hospital, Zurich, Cantonal Hospital, St. Gallen), the Institute of Primary Care (Head: Prof. Rosemann) transmits poor quality studies. 

Further, the mechanism extends to public media reports that lack of sufficient criticism, transmitting wrong impressions about the quality of medical work.  

The abuse of scientific material for ultimately political and utilitarian reasons may have advantages in the short time for some people, however, the credibility of science and the fundaments of society cannot be based on scientific fraud and semi-scientific work. 

A Sentinel system for the investigation of clinically relevant problems should be the basis for the security of supply issues as the golden standard. 

Further research would then need to clarify whether the insurer's data is at all able to correctly capture the signals from Sentinel basic research. As long as this is not the case, the efforts of the insurers are not the appropriate institutions for the collection, quantification and revalidation of problematic medical activities. It is also fundamental to ask whether the insurers should evaluate their data at all, since the independence of the research is not given. The examples that we can work on this website out show in any case that the insurers with their studies create more confusion than clinically valuable help. It is also unclear how far OKP funds flow into such research and thus become alienated.