Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise? • Hacker News Board

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

#301

Post by bjornsing » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:13 AM UTC

UnFleshedOne wrote: post #60

long_time_gone wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

==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. == It feels like we currently have both at the same time. There is "low trust" in any data that doesn't confirm an existing bias, but "high trust" in the data we want to be true. I see it all the time in HN comments. Any study that contradicts the consensus is met with comments about "c…

I think a better term for that is "brain damage". So what if all our brains are built damaged. Saying people are not reasoning machines, but social maneuvering machines doesn't change the fact they are kinda broken...

The thing is, I think people can be both reasoning machines and social maneuvering machines, depending on the incentive structure. Unfortunately we’ve created a society that greatly incentives social maneuvering.

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

#302

Post by geraneum » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:17 AM UTC

sjwalter wrote: post #203

What I want to know is how does this issue impact the notion that we all seem to buy into that we should "follow the science". Scientists themselves have a hard time "following the science". Add to it the observation that when an issue is getting lots of attention outside of academia, then there are usually some really strong incentives (profit, prestige) associated with doing the science and applying it (e.g., epide…

Evidently, there is a serious problem with scientific literature and publications and how they are incentivized. On the other hand, we have scientific method, which is a well-defined and understood technique. The publications don't always follow it. They might be fraudulent or mistaken with good intention. Not everything labeled as science is science. I believe "following the science" is important when it's following scientific method, passed peer reviews, can be reproduced independently, etc. The rest is noise, and the problem is that it's difficult for many to differentiate.

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

#303

Post by kortilla » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:18 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #257

kxkdkkf wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. Then you’d probably want to ask “What kind of genitalia do you currently possess”. Sex assigned at birth is not a reliable indicator of that, for reasons very similar to why current gender identity isn't.

> Sex assigned at birth is not a reliable indicator of that

You might want to rethink that phrasing, because it’s a very reliable indicator. That’s the entire problem. Asking someone “what genitalia they currently posses” is more offensive because it sound like you’re talking about an accessory that people swap out on whim. “Which will you be carrying with you today? The penis or the vagina?”

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

#304

Post by rob_c » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:19 AM UTC

I had the "privilege" of reviewing a certain piece of software written to model a certain pandemic outbreak...

Numerical modelling in biology/virology feels rife with serious problems that are simply sidestepped because of ego and status. I raised alarms and as merely a senior expert in distributed computation and numerical modelling I was shutdown quite strongly. After the group in question were forced to accept our published work refuting their results to be FUBAR due to severe numerical instabilities which hadn't even been checked for we were shut out for a group who patted them on the back for being "oh so clever"...

(our published work numerically demonstrated results they were presenting as fact were compatible with statistical noise and that it is known they didn't have the required extra 100xcompute or 100xtime to produce results as precise as what they were after)

Had a similar experience a few years ago with a geological modelling group and a group hoping to do biochemistry on a huge cluster of 20k cpu cores. For all of the "numerical sciences" achievements only really physics and chemistry (and maths) seem to have championed the ideas of reproducibility and falsifiability in numerical analysis and simulation.

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

#305

Post by SantalBlush » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:21 AM UTC

eloff wrote: post #289

SantalBlush wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think shining light on unethical behavior does reduce its incidence. Do you have some support for why you think the contrary?

Please don't post opinions without supporting evidence and then ask for supporting evidence when someone disagrees with you. This just shows that you're applying skepticism selectively.

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

#306

Post by dcow » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:24 AM UTC

javajosh wrote: post #40

birdyrooster wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess if you don't even feel comfortable sharing the identity of any of the parties, we really have no chance to identify bad actors from good as a community.

"Naming and shaming" comes with risk - probably a lot more risk than upside. The risk is that the parties get something actionable, kind of like "probable cause" in criminal cases. The upside is maybe a small effect on a few HN minds that might remember this when considering this Uni's reputation. The other risk is that it's an act that can easily be abused. It is very easy to level charges against someone without pr…

It also might potentially identify the person posting the comments which if pseudonymity is important might contribute to the calculus.

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

#307

Post by ErikVandeWater » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:43 AM UTC

naasking wrote: post #194

robomartin wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not sure I'm following your point. If you weigh the bad actors and financial incentives of climate change proponents against the bad actors and financial incentives on the fossil fuel side, do you think the scale tips in favour of more honesty for the fossil fuel side or climate change side? There's no doubt groupthink happens in academia on many issues, but the need to displace fossil fuels really is very important.…

> Not sure I'm following your point. If you weigh the bad actors and financial incentives of climate change proponents against the bad actors and financial incentives on the fossil fuel side, do you think the scale tips in favour of more honesty for the fossil fuel side or climate change side?

No one funds research into problems that aren't that big a deal. There has to be a crisis NOW for climate scientists to get more funding and social status. The news media knows there has to be a crisis for people to tune in; no one would watch programming on a problem that won't occur in their lifetimes. And politicians love to take the side of causes that give them the moral high ground. They also get to be sanctimonious and pretend they are "on the side of science" when they have no more grasp than anyone else.

To wit, if politicians were actually interested in reducing CO2 emissions they could just tax it straight up. They could combine that with lowering taxes on other things so as not to hurt the economy. The market would then implement green energy solutions of all kinds on its own.

But that wouldn't give the politicians any leverage for donations from green tech for future campaigns. So they pick and choose winners and losers based on donations and the revolving door. Fossil fuel isn't that unhappy because they get to set up a Nat Gas plant with new wind and solar installs to fill the gap when it's cloudy and calm.

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

#308

Post by Hammershaft » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:44 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #156

injidup wrote: 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…

Have you considered the flipside, which has much more evidence for it, that denialism is being promoted by institutions and speakers who are by proxy funded by the fossil fuel industry, which is one of the largest industries on earth?

I really reccomend, if you want a level headed, conservative, independent look at the issue that you check out some of these videos by Potholer54, a retired geologist and science reporter.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qEylCS6-hBE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D99qI42KGB0

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

#309

Post by BobbyJo » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:45 AM UTC

robomartin wrote: post #221

naasking wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I'm following your point. If you weigh the bad actors and financial incentives of climate change proponents against the bad actors and financial incentives on the fossil fuel side, do you think the scale tips in favour of more honesty for the fossil fuel side or climate change side? There's no doubt groupthink happens in academia on many issues, but the need to displace fossil fuels really is very important.…

No. There is no honesty anywhere, that is my point. > the need to displace fossil fuels really is very important. Why? I don't necessarily disagree. But reality isn't a problem managed through a single variable. The things you list are not singularly caused by fossil fuels. In fact, a very solid argument could be put forth about just how much uglier things might be without fossil fuels. Here's the basic math someone…

I think all of your points miss one glaring fact: Quality of life doesn't matter in the face of an existential threat.

It's not: How do we maintain our quality of life?

It's: What quality of life can we achieve?

The basis of your argument needs to be a reality in which life continues, which limits all other considerations.

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

#310

Post by bulletsvshumans » Tue, Jul 20, 2021, 1:56 AM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #131

rohanphadte wrote: post #8

Some 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 exami…

You missed a sentence. " 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% (…

What about specifically applying increased scrutiny to institutions/countries/other identifiable cohorts? Is it too impolitic?