Of course it is. In fields with no practical use like climate science, publishing is the only way to draw funding. The more you publish, the more money you make. And the more you gear it to scaring lay people to death, the bigger the panic you can create and hence the more money you make. But then I'm repeating myself.
"academic research" is often corporate funded research you do what the corps want or you do not get more funding
I never said anything other than essentially saying it would be foolish to think there was never bias in academic research. The history of academia is full of biased research.
I'm not looking for any reaction. I'm just providing information. The thread title is, after all, a question.
Retractions should not take longer than two months, says UK Parliament committee Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee chair Greg Clark A new report from a UK Parliament committee calls for scientific publishers to correct and retract papers much quicker than they currently do, for the sake of research integrity and reproducibility. The Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee of the House of Commons issued its report today, following an inquiry to which Retraction Watch and one of our cofounders, Ivan Oransky, provided evidence. Many others also gave evidence, including sleuth Dorothy Bishop. The report is an extensive look at current issues of reproducibility and research integrity, and includes many recommendations. About the role of scientific publishers, the report says: Continue reading
Having the House of Commons decide how long it should take to retract a paper is just more assault on science by those who want to believe science is a matter of politics. Should the House of Commons decide what papers journals may publish? Should they decide how long review should take? This whole thread is clearly dedicated to being derogatory on science. But, there are limits. This injection of politics is just plain NOT acceptable.
"The Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee of the House of Commons issued its report today, following an inquiry to which Retraction Watch and one of our cofounders, Ivan Oransky, provided evidence. Many others also gave evidence, including sleuth Dorothy Bishop. The report is an extensive look at current issues of reproducibility and research integrity, and includes many recommendations. About the role of scientific publishers, the report says: Publishers should support academics who report issues with published research in their journals and should commit to timely publication of research error corrections and retractions where necessary—in our view this process should not take longer than two months. As readers of Retraction Watch know, the process of correcting or retracting a paper often takes years. That average length of time has not changed significantly in years, either. In a passage quoted by the committee in its report, we note that A growing group of ‘sleuths’ has found thousands of problematic papers, most of which have yet to be corrected or retracted. The committee also called for publishers to provide sufficient outlets for negative or confirmatory studies."
That horse left the barn here in the states years ago when government agencies like EPA started relying on third party research to develop regulations. It's currently what's behind the practical drive to eliminate CO2 from life here, a thoroughly absurd proposition with disastrous consequences waiting just around the corner. "Science" not only can be used for dubious purposes, but it is being used for such making careers out of shaky premises and quantifiably destroying economies and people. The game you advocate needs to be stopped and this seems like a perfectly good first step.
Are you suggesting you would prefer that the EPA did all it's own research, cutting out science done by independent organizations in the USA and across the globe and then basing regulation exclusively on their own EPA research? Would you increase the EPA budget to the point where it could do all its own research in all areas of our environmental issues?
The EPA is political, not scientific. They'll embrace anything that will get them more work and power. They even went so far as to lose (having worked a lot with them I'd suspect maybe even deliberately) Massachusetts v. EPA in 2007 giving them Carte Blanche to regulate the entire economy in the holy name of "global warming" or whatever the current preferred nomenclature is. Absolutely nothing scientific about that. But the next Supreme Court session will hear a case that could destroy the Chevron deference doctrine rendering EPA out of the business of pandering to their biggest fans.
Watched Joe ragon podcast with a doctor who wrote multiple medical papers. Talked about how people are getting over prescribed. And about how big pharma pays researchers and doctors to put fraudulent research out there to drive their profits. Trying to destroy anyone who goes against them
We've seen prosecutions for this kind of behavior. Not all of it is easy, as drugs are the product of private enterprise, and restrictions on activities of private enterprise advertising in advertising and other behavior is difficult to prosecute. Look how long it took to fight big tobacco. And, we're still not done on that. Unlike tobacco, drugs are monitored and tested for safety and efficacy by the CDC and FDA.
Only to a small extent. There's a revolving door between them and big pharma. Plus drug related research is strictly confidential and isn’t shared. Othing gets investigated unless a bunch of people start dying. At which point the pharma company gets sued. But it wouldn't matter because the earnings are much greater than the payout. Plus, if the symptoms take a really long time to develop, have fun taking the case to tial. They have too much power and influence over research thay they choose to publish. And that research have influence over doctors who prescribed that medication. Look at statins. Side effects beat the lousy effects. Way over prescribed. Taking them for 5 years would only increase your life expectancy by 5 days.
All prescription drugs go through serious testing for safety and efficacy. There certainly have been cases that have strengthened testing requirements. One can read about thalidomide. In that case, it not only strengthened testing, but motivated the FDA to do work to reclassify other drugs already on the market. There are limits to how perfect pharma and the FDA can possibly be. You say statins are over prescribed. What agency or law are you hoping for to deny statins to those who are likely to only get a few days of extra life?
FDA does not conduct clinicaltrial. So most of the information they get regarding safety and efficacy of a drug are from drug companies themselves. What they selectively put out in clinical trials they funded. From researchers they pay. This is a well known fact. Why carry water for them and pretend otherwise? Big Pharma Is Hijacking the Information Doctors Need Most https://time.com/6171999/big-pharma-clinical-data-doctors/
I've been smoking since 1996. So far so good. I've been eating sugar cubes since 1996. So far so good. You get how ignorant your comment sounds? --------------‐------------------------- Conclusions Statin treatment results in a surprisingly small average gain in overall survival within the trials’ running time. For patients whose life expectancy is limited or who have adverse effects of treatment, withholding statin therapy should be considered. https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/5/9/e007118 LONDON (Reuters) - There is no evidence that prescribing cholesterol-lowering drugs known as statins to patients at risk of heart disease reduces their chances of premature death in the short term, scientists said on Monday. The results of a study by British researchers call into question the expanded use of statins such as Pfizer’s Lipitor and AstraZeneca’s Crestor in patients who do not have heart disease but may develop it. “There is little evidence that statins reduce the risk of dying from any cause in individuals without heart disease,” they wrote in the study in Archives of Internal Medicine journal. “This, along with harms caused by statins in some subgroups, have called into question the benefit of statins in primary prevention (prevention of the development of heart disease).” https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...er-wider-use-of-statins-idUSTRE65R5A120100628
The testing is defined and monitored by the FDA. If they detect problems, action is taken. This monitoring continues, especially in circumstances such as the recent pandemic, where doctors were required to report every negative outcome regardless of whether there was any evidence that it was vaccine related. However, the monitoring by CDC and FDA IS limited by their funding, obviously. Yes, EVERY aspect of America can be improved. If there are improvements that the medical world believes are important, then I'm likely to support them.
