Earlier quoted context omitted.
When did “public health openly discredit itself” in such a way?
Seems like the comment you are replying to contains an example.
Yes, I am asking for an example of when that happened.
Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
361–370 of 491 posts
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#362Earlier 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.
What ridiculous regulations are there with regard to ibuprofen and paracetamol? Are you talking about the fact that medicines are not allowed to be sold in supermarkets? I think it's a good thing, since it's a pretty good guarantee that you actually get what you buy. You can get ibuprofen and paracetamol at any pharmacy in Austria for a few euros without a prescription. And in every district there's always a pharmacy…
And pharmacists can actually give proper medical advice on the products!
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#363I 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 don't think you can expect the institution to implicate themselves like that.
Institution should have nothing to fear if they've followed due process and shouldn't be in a position of being implicated in dodgy science to begin with!
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#364Earlier 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)
I think this is a fabulous idea and this kind of sensible approach to regulation could be applied in many different areas, increasing personal freedom without excessively increasing risk and third-party costs. For example, in finance, maybe the default could be that only fixed rate mortgages can be sold, but if you take and pass a rigorous exam and indemnify the government from any claims if you end up losing your ho…
I think there actually is something like that in finance — I can’t just walk into my bank and do some very risky trading with high leverage without taking some exam.
I’m hazy on the details, just have developed an app for a bank that had to do some validation on clients. But I think it is an EU rule (or perhaps Hungary only if someone were to know)
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#365When 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. So it is not a surprise that people that lied in their applications about what they can realistically do also lie when it comes to reporting results. Unfortunately there is no way out. I stopped counting how many reviewers of my grants disagreed on what was proposed, one saying that it…
I keep getting more convinced that Science needs to be rebooted. How do we start over in some sane way?
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#366Earlier 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.…
> 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 honesty anywhere - or rather, the honest people get squeezed out of the field. Which is why the issue ends up so polarised. > There's no doubt groupt…
So you don’t believe that the effects of climate change are serious?
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#367Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They go trough completely different and extremely rigorous testing process where everything is documented carefully, documents are examined and double checked. Rigorous testing is all well and good, but we do know how many errors crop up in scientific papers, right? A lot. The gold standard of testing is double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled studies and this is only done sometimes for vaccines, as far as I a…
Covid vaccines did go trough double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled studies with population size that normal scientific studies can only dream of. As I said, vaccine testing is is exteremely rigorous.
Moreover the mRNA vaccines arrived at their statistical targets far ahead of schedule and when more data came in, the hypothesis was only strengthened. The documents are all public btw, on Moderna and Pfizer's websites.
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#368Nice article
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#369In many European jurisdictions, including Austria, the losing party pays all costs of the lawsuit, including lawyers’ fees. This simple rule takes care of most frivolous suits. So the answer is: Go sue me.
Re: Time to assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise?
#370Earlier 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: 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.
> First, don't underestimate people's ability to read some papers on Hacker News.
The point of the parent article is that it's impossible to assess a paper by reading it. There's no way to, for example, determine that studies on which a paper relies were fictional without further research. Ability doesn't matter - there isn't sufficient information in the paper alone to make an assessment. That is the crux of the crisis.
> 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.
It's hard to believe this comment is made in good faith. You yourself insinuated that another poster was cherry-picking, which is exactly what you did in your response. I can only assume you are trolling or otherwise commenting in bad faith?