What's the object of this thread? Much of published research is fraudulent. I'm simply stating that this seems to be especially so with drug research. Since big pharma who is driven by profits funds most of it. Obviously that big pharma is driven by profits. Obviously. That being the case, its obvious that they would do everything to increase their profits. Like paying researchers to conduct research and put it in such a way that would benefit them. Like exaggerating benefits and downplaying side effects. Which they do all the time They fund most of the clinical trials that stays confidential. FDA has to take their word for it, because FDA themselves dont conduct clinical trial. There's a revolving door between big pharma and FDA https://www.npr.org/sections/health...the-revolving-door-spins-from-fda-to-industry It's all corrupt. Overmedicating is a big problem. Big pharma is driving this problem.
FDA does not conduct clinical trials. That being being the case, any testing they do is largely meaningless. Because it's only by conducting rigorous clinical trials can you truly determine side effects and efficacy.
The object of this thread is to denigrate science. It's author wants to claim that there is a high rate of fraud or inaccuracy, but NO evidence of that is supplied. If big pharma is committing fraud in its science, we have the FDA and the CDC to help detect that. I am MAJORLY in favor of extending support to those organizations for that reason. I'm WAY in favor of making more information from drug trials to be made public. And, I'm ABSOLUTELY in favor of slowing the revolving door between agencies and private enterprise. This is endemic throughout our legislature as well as other branches of our government. Another significant part of this is that legislator can't help but be bought and paid for by industry. They have to make GIGANTIC sums in order to get reelected. If they try NOT to be bought, they are going to LOSE THEIR JOBS. Getting the huge dollars and influence of corporations/industry out of our government is of GIGANTIC importance to all America.
They conduct the trials, including clinical trials. They just don't do the work. The trials and methodology are specific by the FDA. The criteria for passing the different stages of trial that they define are created by the FDA and checked by the FDA. Without approval, testing can not advance from one stage to the next. The FDA also watches the testing being done all over the world. If problems appear hear or abroad the FDA stops the testing. Let's remember that WHO and other organizations exist to ensure safety and efficacy. We do not give the FDA the funding or the charter for doing what you would like to be done. The fact that the corporation executes the testing does not mean it is meaningless.
The matter is in dispute. Panel says BMJ was right to not retract two disputed statin papers A panel reviewing The BMJ‘s handling of two controversial statin papers said the journal didn’t err when it corrected, rather than retracted, the articles. The articles — a research paper and a commentary — suggested that use of statins in people at low risk for cardiovascular disease could be doing far more harm than good. Both articles inaccurately cited a study that provided data important to their conclusions — an error pointed out vigorously by a British researcher, Rory Collins, who demanded that the journal pull the pieces. . . . . Retraction Watch – Tracking retractions as a window into the ... Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com An article based on results from an online survey has been retracted for data issues, and an Australian university is investigating what happened. The article, ...
Again. FDA does not conduct the trials. Hence, its impossible for them to verify them. In science, the only way to verify an experiment is to do it yourself. FDA isn't capable of doing this. So their only option is to take the drug company's word for it. Using the data that the drug companies selectively provide. The actual clinical trials remain confidential for "privacy". Confidentiality in clinical research in the US is covered by the “Privacy Rule” that are a set of regulations provided by the department of health and human services (HSS) as a response to a congressional mandate in the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA). Unless there is probably cause, agencies cannot gain access to confidential corperate materials. As for the bold. It largely does. Would you trust a suspect to carry out an honest investigation into themselves? No? Because they are driven by personal gain. And that conflic of interest makes any information coming from such an investigation unreliable. For the that same reason, one should not trust drug companies (who are driven by profits) to carry honest rigorous clinical trials without manipulating them to suit their intrests. They are driven by profits and the people they pay will write whatever they want.
Dr Aseem Malhotra already put the issue to rest. He first came out with a paper. The foremost statin drug researcher who is paid by big pharma tried to destroy him using his influence. Aseem even lost one of his jobs at that time bcause of this. When his paper that disputed the effecay of statin medications came before the board, it was a unanimous decision proving him right. With some few caveats that had to be added in.
BMJ authors take back inaccurate statin safety statements Last October, the BMJ published a paper by a group of researchers from the United States and Canada questioning the use of statins in patients considered at low risk of cardiovascular disease. The article has been cited eight times since then, according to Thomson Scientific’s Web of Knowledge. It mentioned data from another study that … Continue reading
The largest scientific experiment in history was Peer Review itself and it failed By Jo Nova Peer Review has been a sixty year experiment with no control group It’s touted as the “gold standard” of science, yet the evidence shows Peer Review is an abject failure. There are 30,000 scientific journals that publish nearly 5 million articles a year, and the only thing we know for sure is that two-thirds of papers with major flaws will still get published, fraud is almost never discovered, and peer review has effectively crushed groundbreaking new discoveries. By Adam Mastroianni, Experimental History The rise and fall of Peer Review Why the greatest scientific experiment in history failed, and why that’s a great thing For the last 60 years or so, science has been running an experiment on itself. The experimental design wasn’t great; there was no randomization and no control group. Nobody was in charge, exactly, and nobody was really taking consistent measurements. And yet it was the most massive experiment ever run, and it included every scientist on Earth. It seemed like a good idea at the time, instead it was just rubber stamp to keep the bureaucrats safe. As government funded research took over the world of science after World War II, clueless public servants wanted expert reviewers to make sure they weren’t wasting money on something embarrassingly stupid, or fraudulent. They weren’t search for the truth, just protecting their own necks. Scientifically, there’s no evidence supporting peer review: Here’s a simple question: does peer review actually do the thing it’s supposed to do? Does it catch bad research and prevent it from being published? It doesn’t. Scientists have run studies where they deliberately add errors to papers, send them out to reviewers, and simply count how many errors the reviewers catch. Reviewers are pretty awful at this. In this study reviewers caught 30% of the major flaws, in this study they caught 25%, and in this study they caught 29%. These were critical issues, like “the paper claims to be a randomized controlled trial but it isn’t” and “when you look at the graphs, it’s pretty clear there’s no effect” and “the authors draw conclusions that are totally unsupported by the data.” Reviewers mostly didn’t notice. . . .
Einstein made mistakes. Maybe Sagan did too - I don't know this subject. I don't see this as a justification for assaulting science. What these people contributed was GIGANTIC improvement in understanding this universe - the result of science. No other approach has come even close.
Right. Because science is the process of discovering how the world works. The assumption that we got it right the first time is not science and it is not faith in science. The assumption that "the science is correct" is called scientism. Scientism is a humanist religion. They worship not science, but scientists.
Let me tell you about an "Assult on Science". - Back in the mid-eighties we got taught about the tongue map which was discovered in 1901 in science class. You see there are certain zones on the tounge that sense the four taste sense of salt, bitter, sour, and sweet. These zones, which are the same for everyone, can be located by placing separate pinpoints of salt, bitter, sour, and sweet on one's tongue and noting the results. But not only is the "scientific" tounge map incorrect, it is pure bullshit and was completely disproven in 1971. Not only can you taste the four taste senses with every part of your tongue but there are in fact five taste sense. They forgot savory. But, it was still in the text book in the mid-eighties, so we did the experiment in class. Now, the teacher of that class had done this same experiment, placing toothpicks of salt, bitters, lemon juice and sugar on tongue a to map them out, with several classes over a period of several years. She even did the experiment herself, several times. Yet she not only denied that she could not duplicate the map provided in the textbook, she wasn't bewildered that very few students had turned in the correct result. This was a Assault on Science.
I'm not so sure your teacher was assaulting science in the sense of attempting to demonstrate that science is a failed methodology. Science always includes studies that miss the mark. What I don't like in this thread is that it is fully focused on those failed papers, a clear promotion of the idea that science is incapable of getting it right. It doesn't include: - that these papers were found and rejected by science in one more layer of self checking within the discipline. - that these retractions represent a MINISCULE percent of papers, especially in the hard sciences (biology, chemistry, physics, etc.) where serious controls are more possible than they are when studying humans. - that scientists tend NOT to propagate errors such as these, as scientists take great care in what other studies are allowed to play any role in their own work. That would be shown by looking at citation indexes. The bottom line is that on this board, simply listing retractions is an absolutely FALSE way of presenting science and can not be more than an assault on science as a method of understanding our universe.
Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers Retraction Watch https://retractionwatch.com › top-10-most-highly-cited... Top 10 most highly cited retracted papers · 1. Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease with a Mediterranean Diet. · 2. Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, ...
What point do you think you're making? Half of anesthesiology fraudster’s papers continue to be cited years after retractions In yet more evidence that retracted studies continue to accrue citations, a new paper has shown that nearly half of anesthesiologist Scott Reuben’s papers have been cited five years after being retracted, and only one-fourth of citations correctly note the retraction. According to the new paper, in Science and Engineering Ethics: Our data show that even 5 years after their retraction, nearly half of Reuben’s articles are still being quoted and the retraction status is correctly mentioned in only one quarter of the citations. . . . .
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30144024/ The far larger problem is that people are still getting Wakefield and other garbage through Kennedy Jr. And, that is doing actual physical damage to human beings. What are your ideas on killing the dissemination of this false information to the public, where many in our population are actually BELIEVING these falsehoods and are thus risking serious health damage for themselves and others?
Better for false information to circulate than for some entity to hold arbitrary power to designate truth and falsehood. Each of us is responsible for our own uptake. “If there be time to expose through discussion, the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” --Justice Louis D. Brandeis
