How many medical studies are faked or flawed? • Hacker News Board

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#61

Post by some_random » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

RugnirViking wrote: post #46

some_random wrote: post #18

While we're on the subject, how many studies period are faked or flawed to the point of being useless? It seems to me that the scientific community's reaction to the replication crisis has been to ignore it.

> the scientific community's reaction to the replication crisis has been to ignore it What can they do? It's an incredibly hard problem to solve. It's like asking why the buisness community has done nothing to adress the housing crisis. Large scale culture changes, or the entire structure of the way science is conducted and funded, would be the only solutions

Maybe brush up on undergraduate statistics and experimental design so that they don't execute and publish obviously flawed studies? Perhaps they could apply such basic knowledge to the peer review process which is supposed to catch these things. They could stop defending their peers who publish bogus research, stop teaching about obviously flawed nonsense like the Stanford Prison "Experiment" and hold "scientists" like Philip Zimbardo in contempt. It's like asking how individual cops can make things better, of course they can't fix systematic problems but that doesn't mean there's nothing they can do.

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#62

Post by qt31415926 » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 5:56 PM UTC

jovial_cavalier wrote: post #32

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #2

Those are two wildly different things. Most things are flawed. Deliberately fabricating results is anathema to advancing science.

How do you discern between a study that is flawed and one that is faked? For instance, you could use some methodology that you know to be flawed, and allow that flawed methodology to bias your result in a pre-determined direction. If you're ever caught, you just claim it was an honest error, but it functions exactly the same as if you generated the data wholesale.

He groups them together because ultimately the result is that the science can't be trusted. He doesn't go so far to claim that one was intentionally faked vs gross incompetence.

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#63

Post by BurningFrog » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 5:58 PM UTC

Ilverin wrote: post #47

Tenoke wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A lot who stay purely in Academia do it as well, presumably for the prestige.

Well you need peer reviewed papers in highish impact journals to get tenure. For some people, the only way they're getting that is by cheating.

Doing research has a lottery element. You explore something that might reveal an important discovery. And sometimes it just doesn't.

That doesn't mean you're a bad scientist, just an unlucky one. But it does mean you can't get tenure.

So it's easy to understand why people fake results to secure a career.

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#64

Post by some_random » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 5:58 PM UTC

tppiotrowski wrote: post #56

some_random wrote: post #18

While we're on the subject, how many studies period are faked or flawed to the point of being useless? It seems to me that the scientific community's reaction to the replication crisis has been to ignore it.

> While we're on the subject, how many studies period are faked or flawed to the point of being useless? Or how many studies are useless, period? It's like publishing a memoir to Amazon. You can now say "author" on your resume, or when you're introduced or at cocktail parties but nobody finds any value in what you have to say. You can also use ChatGPT because people might not notice.

There is always value in expanding the breadth and depth of human knowledge, even if it doesn't seem useful to you, right now. That of course assumes that knowledge is true, which is the crux of the problem now.

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#65

Post by NotHowStatsWork » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

somenameforme wrote: post #17

"For more than 150 trials, Carlisle got access to anonymized individual participant data (IPD). By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And in 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust, he judged — either bec…

"So, 70% fake/flawed."

I think you miss read that section? Only were 44% fake or flawed acording to this study.

The 26% that were very flawed is a subset of the 44% that were flawed in general. So those precentages should not be added together.

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#66

Post by adamsb6 » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

some_random wrote: post #18

While we're on the subject, how many studies period are faked or flawed to the point of being useless? It seems to me that the scientific community's reaction to the replication crisis has been to ignore it.

The replication crisis is even a thing because of very strong career incentives.

You might think that publishing about the replication crisis itself would be great for your career, but perhaps not. Maybe the incentives to be able to bullshit your way to a professorship are so great that no one wants to rock the boat.

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#67

Post by [deleted] » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

MavisBacon wrote: post #36

denimnerd42 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furan content in coffee too. Very low amount but still. Coffee prevents headaches for me so I'll always drink it. And no it's not related to physical dependence although at this point the withdrawal will guarantee a headache.

Interesting. I was at one point diagnosed with "tension headaches" and prescribed a medication called Fioricet which is a combination of caffeine, acetaminophen, and a barbituate called butalbital. Incredibly effective. I'm sure the harm profile of coffee alone is lower so if it's totally eliminating headaches as a problem for you it's perhaps a better solution, but thought i'd throw that out there as it could be wor…

[deleted]

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#68

Post by smazga » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 5:59 PM UTC

goosinmouse wrote: post #24

denimnerd42 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Furan content in coffee too. Very low amount but still. Coffee prevents headaches for me so I'll always drink it. And no it's not related to physical dependence although at this point the withdrawal will guarantee a headache.

I can relate. I never drank anything with caffeine and would get headaches fairly often. Headaches were never too bad or too often to need medical attention but was just normal part of life. I started drinking coffee on road trips and drives over 3 hours long and noticed that my headache coming on would go away right after. Now i drink coffee twice daily and i'll get a headache once a month at most.

Yerba mate is my caffeine of choice and I suggested it to my Dad who gets bad migraines. He claims that when he feels a migraine coming on, he can drink a can and it will result in a mild headache instead of forcing him to lie down in a dark room for hours.

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#69

Post by paulddraper » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 6:01 PM UTC

Solvency wrote: post #13

I often chuckle that same people who vehemently defend vaccine safety studies also decry studies that show processed seed oils, glyphosate, aspartame, and hundreds of other molecules or compounds are unsafe over time. That's the beauty of medical studies! Whether they're good or bad, your own biases mean you can simply ignore the ones that don't align with your opinions. Oh, before I forget! Red meat and saturated fa…

> Red meat and saturated fat is terrible for you!

Red meat is a little bit bad for longevity. The majority of the reported effect is correlative.

> it's actually sugar that's evil.

Sugar is bad but mostly because it's easy to overeat, and obesity is all around terrible for health.

> Vegetables are great for you! Oh wait, most vegetables contain oxalates and other defense, mechanisms and compounds that are actually bad for you

Cooking removes most oxalates (tho vitamins too, to be fair). But the overall effect of oxalates is relatively minor, except in extreme cases.

---

Every food source has advantages and disadvantages.

Not being obese is 75% of the health battle.

Re: How many medical studies are faked or flawed?

#70

Post by rqtwteye » Tue, Sep 19, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

Tenoke wrote: post #37

jermaustin1 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>helps them advance their careers ... into the multi-billion dollar companies GP is talking about.

A lot who stay purely in Academia do it as well, presumably for the prestige.

I would think a successful study is way better for your academic career than a failed study.