Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

blogs.bmj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 491 posts

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

#311

Post by hellbannedguy »

bluGill wrote: post #200
hellbannedguy wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This needs to end. I would take a pharmaceutical/drug related test (administered through the state), and it could be comprehensive; If I could renew my long term prescriptions. The pharmacist wants to see a blood panel before refilling, fine, I should be able to order one. (Only on long term medications (Blood pressure, diabetes, and most psychiatric drugs within reason) , and never antibiotics)

While I agree with the sentiment, anyone on long term medication needs regular monitors by a doctor anyway. If you are only 25 this won't make sense, but by the time you get to 50 you need regular checkups for lots of things that are best caught early. I've lost enough family to colon cancer (spouse of a second cousin - can I even claim him as family?), and several others are only alive now because their cancer was c…

I'm not arguing against physicals.

Right now American law states you need to see a doctor once a year in order to procure medications.

We all know how many times patients are brought in just to get that script. They (MD's) love the six week interval. It pays for the lifestyle.

I'm lucky if my blood pressure is checked.

And the Colon scan is something they might be mentioned while walking out the door.

My point is if you have a conscience doctor, and good insurance, by all means take advantage of it.

Many Americans don't have good insurance, but need medication.

We shouldn't have to come into pricy office visits (basically a stare down, or if he's peppy--some dubious advice) just to get a medication we have been on for years.

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

#312

Post by Sophistifunk »

tshaddox wrote: post #253
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…

What is the alternative to following the science? Following people who are not scientists and who are explicitly making things up? This sounds a lot like "most plane crashes are due to pilot error, so maybe we should give non-pilots control of the planes."

Most of the time the computer flies the plane, and we're all safer for it.

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

#313

Post by AlbertCory »

Tabular-Iceberg wrote: post #278
jahnu wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to mention almost all pharmacies selling homeopathic rubbish. I find this particularly irritating given the ridiculously regulations and control around things like buying paracetamol or ibuprofen.

Medical and ethical standards are in complete free fall in European pharmacies. I was told by my vet to rinse my dog’s eyes in sterile isotonic saline solution. When I went to the pharmacy to ask for it they didn’t know what it was. They suggested using chlorhexidine wound disinfectant instead. My poor dog would have probably been blind or worse if I had taken the advice. But they don’t care, they just want to move p…

I sympathize, and good for you for not doing it!

If I can suggest something to look into (i.e. not recommend!):

I use NeilMed sinus rinse which is just saline and bicarbonate (so pH balanced). Use distilled water to mix it. You can buy it at most drugstores.

This is not sterile unless you sterilize everything, but at least there are no funky chemicals.

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

#314

Post by prawn »

nixpulvis wrote: post #248
menzoic wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So what should be done? Hire your own lawyers to go after them pro bono? Write an article and send it to the papers? This kind of thing needs to be shamed and punished. While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass, there must be a course of action.

Tip off a newspaper. If they don't take it, try another. Generally, the journalists will have training in how to approach it without legal exposure and/or have it vetted by their publication's lawyers.

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

#315

Post by emmelaich »

robomartin wrote: post #294
SubiculumCode wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You suggest how scientists can act, their motivations, their freedom to disagree with the status quo, or those higher up the ladder in their field etc. You suggest how scientists will lose grants if they produce inconvenient science, etc etc. So I ask again. Are you a scientist? Have you written a grant application? Have you been punished? I AM a scientist, and I have never seen this hypothetical world.

It's a matter of your field of study. Climate change, in particular, is a minefield. I am not saying what I said in a vacuum, this came out of conversations with actual climate science researchers and scientists that I had the opportunity to meet during the course of my work in aerospace. The context was a project were we were developing various systems and payloads for both the International Space Station and, event…

Moreover, there is really no such single thing as "climate science"; there is atmospherical physics, chemistry, meteorology, physical oceanography marine science, biology, paleobiology, the list goes on.

Use google ngrams to look for "climate science". It basically doesn't occur before around 1982.

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

#316

Post by eloff »

SantalBlush wrote: post #305
eloff wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't have supporting evidence, and I'm not about to look it up right now. I think you're in the same boat or you wouldn't have replied like that.

I don't think it's controversial though, isn't it commonly believed that increased transparency means less corruption? It might not be true, but if it's the prevailing belief then the burden of proof is in fact on you.

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

#317

Post by dragonwriter »

kortilla wrote: post #303
dragonwriter wrote: post #257

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. 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?”

> > 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

In the context where current gender identity is an insufficiently reliable indicator, which is the context of the supposed need to ask the question, no, it is not.

If you need to probe beyond current gender identity because your personal sensitivities about genitalia can tolerate no error, then you need also to bypass indirect proxies entirely and ask the question you are actually concerned about regarding genitalia.

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

#318

Post by AlexCoventry »

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…

I mostly see "follow the science" in regard to well-established and scientifically validated theories and practices, like the germ theory of medicine and its implications for hygiene, or the theory of immunology and vaccination.

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

#319

Post by the_svd_doctor »

diognesofsinope wrote: post #107
ethanbond wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. The incentives in science are all wrong. To maximize your chances of publication (i.e. keeping your job), you have to make the most outlandish claims you can possibly maybe defend. Additionally, the complexity of data/analysis is increasing every day while also the esoteric domain knowledge required to make any progress is deeper and more specialized.

Not only this, academia is a really cushy job. When I was an economics RA literally half of the econ professors didn't work Fridays and barely worked summers. It was incredible you get paid 150k with that kind of schedule.

That’s surprising to hear. All the professors I’ve known (a bunch, mostly in Math and Engineering), while they all have some problem at some level, are all very hard working. They definitively work every work day, and often much more.

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

#320

Post by Niksko »

caddemon wrote: post #274
tshaddox wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the alternative to following the science? Following people who are not scientists and who are explicitly making things up? This sounds a lot like "most plane crashes are due to pilot error, so maybe we should give non-pilots control of the planes."

I think it depends on the risk/reward of not following the science - as an example, there was debate about whether ibuprofen worsened the effects of COVID early in the pandemic. MGH basically came out and said that while the research was leaning towards ibuprofen being okay (and the WHO at that point had announced it was), they had plenty of acetaminophen available and no reason to doubt its safety for COVID patients…

Unfortunately, the risk/reward equation is confounded by people who interpret any kind of public health measures as a slippery slope towards fascism.
Post reply on HN