Live data from Hacker News

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

blogs.bmj.com

261–270 of 491 posts

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

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For what possible reason are you asking that question of anyone?

Well, maybe you own a waxing salon that does Brazilian waxes and you're Muslim and don't believe you should see or be in contact with male genitalia besides that of your husband. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jessica_Yaniv > In 2018, Yaniv filed discrimination complaints with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal against multiple waxing salons alleging that they refused to provide genital waxing to her because…

> They further argued that being transgender was not the issue for them, rather having male genitalia was

To be clear, the beauticians explicitly didn't care (per their claims) what the birth sex of the customer was, so I'm not sure how that would be a relevant question here? Per their claims, they'd have had the same issue with a trans-man who'd had bottom surgery.

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

#262
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'…

>Universities and grants are this firehose of tax money being sprayed everywhere without even the slightest bit of accountability in how it's used.

No, grants are not a firehose of tax money with no accountability--not even close. You completely made that up.

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

#264
post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

academics are largely the only people who will be able to understand the work, but sure. The fact that it's not out in the open is somewhat complicated. You're perhaps right that it would lead to better outcomes, but it's also important that researchers feel free to speak openly.

I understand the concern about being free to speak candidly, but I think it's trumped by the need for transparency to ensure that if improper gatekeeping or other unethical behavior is happening, their reputation is also on the line. Basically if you can't say it to your peers in public, don't say it at all. This also fixes the problem of incompetent peer review, because it will be called out as such and the reviewer…

Opening peer review to public scrutiny will not make the process any less political--quite the contrary. There must be some way to combat the unethical behavior that does exist in academia, but that isn't it.

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

#265
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…

It seems well intentioned, but I'm not surprised at all about the outcome. I don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that. You have to realize that preventing legal and financial liabilities is the #1 priority for institutions. Unfortunately this includes when they are wrong. Even if the employees are "good" their lawyers will advise them against providing any details like that and mos…

I think this is one of the hurdles human civilisation has to iterate over en masse and long-term. Game theory is distorted by a mixture of power dynamics and the abstract nature of "society" - i.e. determining risk v reward (professional, personal, financial, etc) comes down to the individual person or organisation, whereas "society" as a concept doesn't get a say in each transaction as it occurs, so a lot of discussion gets side-tracked there. Without a gestalt consciousness such instances of suboptimal outcomes will continue to occur, and since gestalt consciousness is technologically a remote prospect, present-day social hierarchies are at best a gross approximation of the ideal "average path" or "surfing on the bell curve of understanding", balancing individual freedom and satisfaction against fear of repercussion and ridicule with accuracy and efficiency (at a social scale).

I do think that modern technology can revamp antiquated systems of peer review and appeals to authority with more robust and deterministic / objective measures of quality - an evolving consensus repository of the sum of human knowledge where each pull request is a debate, each experiment a commit to a branch that may become a new foundation or a footnote. Yet we still see fit to define knowledge as property, ownership as power, power as success. Fear of the impression of weakness, or the threat of starvation and poverty seems to override all other priorities and for the most part, we toe the line.

It is what it is I guess.

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

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 iverm…

See also Tess Lawrie's response to the Guardian article, that they rated it "unclear" in bias versus low and high, and how the meta analysis is affected if Elgazzar is removed (12 min excerpt):

https://mobile.twitter.com/BretWeinstein/status/141654059008...

(Spoiler: not much.)

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

#267
post #108

I've had a thought on how to solve this issue by using basically a research paper futures market. You could implement this with Ethereum Smart Contracts. You have a market around the validity of research papers. You would need some authority that would act as the oracle of the paper's validity. If the paper is found invalid before some time period the people who bet on the paper's truth would lose their money to the…

This could actually make it worse. Companies could pump their own research anonymously

That could still be a good system, like pay-for-play on the radio. While you could pump complete crap, it's more profitable to pump songs that people will actually like, and companies with better songs end up with more money to pump stuff.

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

#268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Universities and grants are this firehose of tax money being sprayed everywhere without even the slightest bit of accountability in how it's used. This is definitely not true, recipients of grants are heavily restricted on what kind of things they can spend that money on. I can't even fly a non-domestic carrier using grant money without proving no other alternatives exist. Do research projects sometimes fail to del…

recipients of grants are heavily restricted They are restricted in trivial ways that are easy for a bureaucracy to mechanically enforce, as is true of employees at every institution. What I meant by accountability is deeper: people are not accountable for the quality or utility of their work, hence the endless tidal wave of corrupt and deceptive research that pours out of government funded 'science' every day. These…

> What I meant by accountability is deeper: people are not accountable for the quality or utility of their work, hence the endless tidal wave of corrupt and deceptive research that pours out of government funded 'science' every day. These researchers probably filled out their expenses paperwork correctly but the final resulting paper was an exercise in circular reasoning, or the data tables were made up, or it was P-hacked or whatever. And nobody in government cares or even notices, because nobody is held accountable for the quality of the outputs.

Have you ever received and administered a grant? I have to ask. You seem pretty certain about how it works, but it just doesn't match with my experience.

You say that there's no accountability in results and this leads to people committing fraud. In my experience, fraud happens when there is too high of an expectation that researchers can't meet. Let's say you get a $5 million grant to do X, and in the course of doing X you find out it's not possible. You have a negative result. First of all, good luck publishing a negative result. Without that publication, good luck getting the next grant.

High expectations for results incentivize fraud. There should be room for researchers to come up short with their research and still be able to progress in their careers. But when grants dry up, the publications dry up and then your career is derailed by failing to get tenure.

The fact is that not everyone can be researching world-changing technologies. That's just not a realistic expectation. Even Google can't do that, as much as you laud a profit motive (how many Google projects are in the trash right now?). But that's what we expect of everyone who gets grant money, precisely for the reason that people have an expectation that an immediate and tangible ROI must be demonstrated.

I don't know if you consider people at funding agencies like the NSF as part of the government, but they do notice when projects fall short, and they do deny 80% of grant applications (I would consider that accountability).

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

#269
post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have a personal philosophy on most health oriented fads: if someone is actively trying to sell something, it's snake oil. Too many people are looking for everlasting life that they're okay with being swindled in the pursuit of it. Naive enough to believe that people are honest when promoting products they're were paid to promote.

You can pair it with: if it works, it's controlled. Meaning you can't get it without prescription and have to go through the tortures of a health "care" system.

I mean weed, psilocybin, shrooms, peyote, LSD, and MDMA are all pretty effective without a prescription.

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

#270
post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, maybe its just a coincidence that it was published right when the current dangers of misinformation are so high and so many are failing to believe science.

The solution to “people aren't believing academia” is to make academia more trustworthy (probably by filtering for trustworthiness rather than making individuals more trustworthy), not to encourage scientism. Seeking the truth is still important, after all.

Wasn’t trustworthiness what “peer reviewed journals” was all about? Clearly research fraud isn’t “seeking the truth.”
Post reply on HN