Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
1–10 of 491 posts
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#2No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g.
> When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.”
People already know what the bullshit results are.
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#3The war on standards is creating a low trust society.
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#4Wouldn't this be the default scientific position? Or to take some of the hyperbole out of the statement, rephrase as: "is it time to assume that health research hypotheses are incorrect until a preponderance of data and reproducible studies prove otherwise?"
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#5No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g. > When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” People already know what the bullshit results are.
How do you know if any individual person is "in the know"?
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#6Wouldn't this be the default scientific position? Or to take some of the hyperbole out of the statement, rephrase as: "is it time to assume that health research hypotheses are incorrect until a preponderance of data and reproducible studies prove otherwise?"
Exactly, that's the thing about science, nobody believes it until everything that has been tried to show it is wrong fails. I wish this were taught more in schools.
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#7The war on standards is creating a low trust society.
I don't know. The amount of people that take one poorly measured data point and use that as a north star seems more troubling to me - than a society with low trust.
I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad. I am convinced that a society that has high trust in garbage data is bad.
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#8Some highlights to show how health research is published:
> Mol, like Roberts, has conducted systematic reviews only to realise that most of the trials included either were zombie trials that were fatally flawed or were untrustworthy.
> But the anaesthetist John Carlisle analysed 526 trials submitted to Anaesthesia and found that 73 (14%) had false data, and 43 (8%) he categorised as zombie. When he was able to examine individual patient data in 153 studies, 67 (44%) had untrustworthy data and 40 (26%) were zombie trials.
> Others have found similar results, and Mol’s best guess is that about 20% of trials are false. Very few of these papers are retracted.
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#9Wouldn't this be the default scientific position? Or to take some of the hyperbole out of the statement, rephrase as: "is it time to assume that health research hypotheses are incorrect until a preponderance of data and reproducible studies prove otherwise?"
"preponderance" is doing a lot of work in that statement. I would argue that this is mostly about reevaluating our standards for preponderance.
And it's really hard to know if a study is reproducible. We could assume everything is incorrect until it has already been reproduced by an unrelated party, and I think that would be a major change in thought.
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#10Non elite stem academia is essentially a back door immigration program. The research is basically useless, and incremental at best