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

341–350 of 491 posts

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

#341

Post by WalterBright »

StanislavPetrov wrote: post #337
WalterBright wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are personally funding Professor X to do some research say, on making a better LCD display, and Professor X comes up with nothing but personal aggrandizement passed off as "research", are you personally likely to fund him some more? I seriously doubt it. Any more than you'd continue taking your car to an auto shop that took your money but didn't fix it.

You aren't paying Professor X to fix your product, you are paying Professor X to endorse your product.

Personal aggrandizement is not the same as endorsing your product.

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

#342

Post by rituraj_tiwari »

All research grants should take 40% of funds and give them to a completely separate team to do "QA" research. This will give up and coming researchers cred to get primary funding after a few good QA projects. If research cannot be reproduced by an independent QA team, it does not make sense to fund it or trust it.

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

#343

Post by forcry »

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."

>What is the alternative to following the science?

Actually it is not the science that is causing this issue. But research in various forms is.

Trusting science is fundamentally different from trusting "scientists".

Trusting science is essentially trusting nature to behave in a regular fashion. But trusting research, done and proclaimed by a bunch of humans is well, trusting human beings. Nothing could be more fundamentally different.

I think adding a "repeatability factor" to researches could help. So if anyone on the planet can replicate a research method, it should have a repeatability factor value of 1. If only a single entity can replicate it, then it should have a value of 0. If some entities can validate it, then it should have a value somewhere in between.

This does not mean that research that have low RF cannot be applied widely. It just that it will have to do additional work to gain the trust of the people.

It only follows common sense that trust in something cannot be mandated. So, measures that are based on low RF value research should NEVER be mandated. No matter what that cost.

And thus I think this can save the corruption and manipulation in the name of science.

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

#344

Post by zepto »

BitwiseFool wrote: post #44
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 enough people realize that science and academia are just as prone to organizational politics and corruption as everything else. Peer reviewed studies are great, but , just because it was published doesn't mean it represents "The Truth". And sadly, being skeptical of studies makes you appear less credible in arguments.

>being skeptical of studies makes you appear less credible in arguments

This is the most screwed up part.

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

#345

Post by zepto »

tshaddox wrote: post #334
sjwalter wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bad take. People are rightly wary of public health when public health openly discredits itself--you'd have to be an absolute imbecile to believe, e.g., covid was a huge risk during anti-lockdown protests, but was not at all a concern during BLM protests.

When did “public health openly discredit itself” in such a way?

Seems like the comment you are replying to contains an example.

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

#346

Post by zepto »

brutusborn wrote: post #293
sjwalter wrote: post #180

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness." Richard Horton, current editor of The Lancet: https…

He talks about the case against science as well as bad studies like they are the same thing. Science is simply a method that can be done well or badly. The bad studies aren't fundamental to science itself.

> Science is simply a method that can be done well or badly

Science as a word doesn’t typically denote “the scientific method”. It usually means the body of knowledge and the collective of institutions that claim to practice the method.

The bad studies may not be fundamental to some abstract ideal of what science could be, but they seem pretty fundamental to humans doing science in the real world.

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

#347

Post by OtomotO »

krige wrote: post #336
mr_toad wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> While I agree that the institutions can be expected to cover there ass Should we have that expectation? If a person does it we call it concealing evidence, intimidation, and perverting the course of justice. On the other hand, if they confess right away, we treat them leniently. Why should institutions differ?

Because institutions are not individuals. They do not possess a conscience, morality, or any other humane emotion that makes leniency possible and produce favourable outcomes.

is an institution not a group of people as well? People with consciences, moralities and other human emotions?

If not, what's the difference to any other organisation such as, in an absolute extreme form, an army or a "terror"group apart from the agenda.

Really curious, not trying to construct a strawman!

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

#348

Post by Niksko »

sjwalter wrote: post #327
Niksko wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Bad take. People are rightly wary of public health when public health openly discredits itself--you'd have to be an absolute imbecile to believe, e.g., covid was a huge risk during anti-lockdown protests, but was not at all a concern during BLM protests.

Terrible take. Weariness is fine. Interpreting it as a step towards fascism is just individualism taken to it's empathy-less extreme.

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

#349

Post by rubatuga »

closewith wrote: post #201
rubatuga wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: https://ivmmeta.com You really cannot trust the raw risk estimates that they give on this site. But it's the most comprehensive list of trials for ivermectin there is, and a place for…

> I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: Surely the point of the OP's post is that the reader can't evaluate these studies on their own. At least not without undertaking the kind of review and background research that is no…

First, don't underestimate people's ability to read some papers on Hacker News. It's not that hard. And second, what's wrong with anonymous alleged HCWs? Seems like the intersection of politics and science has gotten out of hand if you ask me. Also, if you could please find me a well-laid out superset of the articles in ivmmeta.com, I will gladly replace the link.

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

#350

Post by ghufran_syed »

bserge wrote: post #165
MeinBlutIstBlau wrote: post #99

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.

that’s not true in developing countries. Vitamins and “over the counter” (OTC) medicines definitely work - the regulators need to decide the relative risk and benefit of allowing OTC access. As a physician, my personal view is that we should allow more people access to more medicines that are currently prescription-only in the US, but there are always going to be some medicines where the risk of harm is high enough that having a licensed doctor be the gatekeeper is overall beneficial for society. So while I might draw the dividing line in a different place, I think the concept of controlling access to certain medications is sound
Post reply on HN