Live data from Hacker News

Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

blogs.bmj.com

151–160 of 491 posts

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#151

" ...Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest reporting of trials after a colleague asked if he knew that his systematic review showing the mannitol halved death from head injury was based on trials that had never happened. He didn’t, but he set about investigating the trials and confirmed that they hadn’t ever happened. They all…

well if the original studies are inadequate simply because N is too low, then grouping many of them can resolve that problem.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#152
post #93

I work on large multi-center clinical trials as a machine learning engineer. One of my projects involves the semi-automation of the detection of fraudulent data. There's one link in the chain here missing that some people here seem to be ignoring. The authors of this post (while entirely correct) draw no link between "bad data" (which is doubtlessly responsible for a large number of "bad papers"/"bad trials") and "ba…

Some segments on HN have strong anti-scientist sentiments (even while they proclaim to be pro-science), assumine we all are crooked, stupid or both, hence your insightful and reasonable comment being downvoted.

Is there fraud? Sure. Is there a lot of fraud happening in American science? I don't think so. To quote the article:

"Many of the trials came from the same countries (Egypt, China, India, Iran, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey), and when John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford University, examined individual patient data from trials submitted from those countries to Anaesthesia during a year he found that many were false: 100% (7/7) in Egypt; 75% (3/ 4) in Iran; 54% (7/13) in India; 46% (22/48) in China; 40% (2/5) in Turkey; 25% (5/20) in South Korea; and 18% (2/11) in Japan. Most of the trials were zombies. Ioannidis concluded that there are hundreds of thousands of zombie trials published from those countries alone. "

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sadly amused by all this. The complaint I hear about privately done research is it's all tainted by the profit motive, and so research should be funded by the government, as then it'll be pure and untainted by selfish motives. Of course, government funded motives are just as tainted by selfish motives, if not more. Even worse, the people who make the funding decisions aren't spending their own money, so they have…

Actually, companies pay universities to conduct fake research that "shows" that their products work.

That's the same problem in disguise. The reason they don't do the "our product is great" research themselves is because if they did people would switch their brains on and properly evaluate it. They pay universities (i.e. government funded organizations) because of the false belief in our society that government funding means universities are neutral, trustworthy, competent research institutions, when in fact they are really quite corrupt and filled with easily bribed researchers who will publish basically anything if it means they get another paper or grant out of it.

If/when the perception of government funded researchers finally aligns with the reality, businesses would stop doing that because there'd be no reputational misalignment to exploit.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#154
post #145
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can be sued by anyone, for anything, at any time. Whether or not that lawsuit has any merit is irrelevant. With certain exceptions based on subject matter (e.g. SLAPP) or jurisdiction, it still costs money to hire a lawyer to defend against the suit.

American law does not apply in Austria

Why not? What state is that in?

/s

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#155

I knew there were issues with various kinds of research. Things like p-hacking, "touching up" data, and so on. But the lead example is pretty wild: > As he described in a webinar last week, Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest reporting of trials after a colleague asked if he knew that his systematic review showing the mannit…

It's one example, chosen and presented by someone with something to prove, and which fails to provide any evidence (such as the names of the studies or lead author).

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#156
post #20

I recently had the privilege of trying to do the right thing when I identified fraudulent research carried out by an institution in Austria. The initial response of the institution was positive but when I pressed for further details on how such things could happen suddenly nobody anymore would take my call. The research was paid for by a private company to pimp a nonsense product. The research was never published in…

This is one of the problems I have with the absolute freak show that climate science/global-warming/saving-the-planet has become. It is, at a minimum, a triangle of bad actors with one corner being politicians --fear-based vote harvesting--, the second being business --jump on the bandwagon and print money...facilitated by politicians who want votes in exchange for fear mongering-- and, finally, religious-based detractors --using the best ignorance can offer in order to advanced humanity.

You combine these three factors (and likely a few more) and the entire thing is a rotten stinking mess that exists on a binary state between religious deniers and religious zealots.

What's a researcher to do? Tell the truth? Ha! Only if you want your career completely destroyed as well as never seeing even a hint of a grant. Going against these forces is a sure path to having more PhD's driving taxis.

I have to say, I have become very cynical about what we call "science" these days. It seems you have to be very guarded about accepting anything you are told, because the forces at play could be beyond anyone's imagination in scale, breath and reach. The problem is that the general voting public is ill-equipped to take an intellectual stab at what they are being told, which means they are easily duped and herded like cattle in and direction that might be of benefit to the puppet masters in politics.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#157
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When you want to do a proper work, your grants and papers get rejected because they are not innovatove enough or don't go far enough. Not being innovative enough isn't the root cause though. The real issue is there isn't enough funding to go around, and so the bar is higher than it needs to be. Available research funding in the US is a paltry sum considering the aggregate ROI of discoveries and technologies that or…

I get the sense from colleagues and visiting different universities that this varies across the US, Canada, the UK, and the EU, but grants are now the bread and butter at most US universities. It's not really enough to publish 100s of articles, or have a high h index, it's to bring in money even if it's not strictly necessary for your research. Part of the reason we have the problem you're mentioning is not that ther…

The problem here is not profit but the reverse, the corruption comes from the absence of profit.

Universities and grants are this firehose of tax money being sprayed everywhere without even the slightest bit of accountability in how it's used. The government effectively "loses" all of it in accounting terms, but because it's tax it doesn't matter. The buyer is blind and doesn't even bother looking at the papers they've paid for, let alone caring about the quality.

Now go look at the results coming out of corporate labs when the corporates actually want to use the tech. You get amazing labs that are consistently re-defining the state of the art: Bell Labs, DeepMind, Google Research, FAIR, Intel, ARM, TSMC etc. The first thing that happens when the corporate labs get interested in an area is that universities are immediately emptied out because they refuse to pay competitive wages - partly because being non-profit driven entities they have no way to judge what any piece of research is actually worth.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#158
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's the famous story of the doctor who figured out, in the 1980s, how to cure stomach ulcers.[1] Stomach ulcers are usually a bacterial disease, and antibiotics work. The microbiologists in Brussels loved it, and by March of 1983 I was incredibly confident. During that year Robin and I wrote the full paper. But everything was rejected. Whenever we presented our stuff to gastroenterologists, we got the same campai…

Sounds like ivermectin is going through something similar. This off-patent, cheap, and safe drug is able to significantly reduce COVID-19 symptoms [0], and is extremely likely to be a potent prophylactic and treatment for COVID-19 [1], to the extent that the third wave in North America wouldn't have happened if it was used. The inventor, Satoshi Omura, won a Nobel Prize for inventing the drug in 2015, and tried to co…

Honestly I was surprised not to see any mention of IVM in the original post. Many of the points in the original article apply to what's going on with systemic reviews of IVM - see for example allegations of misconduct/fraud by theguardian to Elgazzar's big IVM study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s...

It does also bring into question the validity of Tess Lowrie's systematic review of ivermectin efficacy.

Also, your systematic review [1] includes the Elgazzar as "low risk" of bias... when in fact Elgazzar had GLARING errors.

It also makes me question the competence of everyone involved in this systematic review that they can't find these glaring errors but some random med student can.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#159
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a good point. But if the companies are paying for research in how to build better products, they aren't going to pay for bullshit research.

It has happened before i.e. Hendrik Schon, however these incidents are more to do with humanity as a species than their employers.

Nothing is 100%.

I'm talking about incentives here, and people do things almost entirely on selfish impulses. Money is a powerful motivator, and people are strongly motivated to not spend their own money on bullshit. That motivation is absent when government funds things - but other motivations remain.

Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?

#160
post #20

I recently had the privilege of trying to do the right thing when I identified fraudulent research carried out by an institution in Austria. The initial response of the institution was positive but when I pressed for further details on how such things could happen suddenly nobody anymore would take my call. The research was paid for by a private company to pimp a nonsense product. The research was never published in…

This is one of the problems I have with the absolute freak show that climate science/global-warming/saving-the-planet has become. It is, at a minimum, a triangle of bad actors with one corner being politicians --fear-based vote harvesting--, the second being business --jump on the bandwagon and print money...facilitated by politicians who want votes in exchange for fear mongering-- and, finally, religious-based detra…

Are you a scientist?
Post reply on HN