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?

#11

Post by hanniabu » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

ChuckMcM wrote: post #6

0xbadc0de5 wrote: post #4

Wouldn't this be the default scientific position? Or to take some of the hyperbole out of the statement, rephrase as: "is it time to assume that health research hypotheses are incorrect until a preponderance of data and reproducible studies prove otherwise?"

Exactly, that's the thing about science, nobody believes it until everything that has been tried to show it is wrong fails. I wish this were taught more in schools.

Yeah but you also can't go test 100 previous studies that the work you want to do is based on before you can even start yours. That's extremely inefficient, wasteful, and will tremendously slow progress.

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

#12

Post by wrycoder » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:03 PM UTC

KittenInABox wrote: post #5

peytn wrote: post #2

No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g. > When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” People already know what the bullshit results are.

How do you know if any individual person is "in the know"?

You evaluate their background, publications, and associates, and then you use your best judgement.

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

#13

Post by satchlj » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:04 PM UTC

This should be the default scientific position, however because people (including scientists) care greatly about their health and the health of their loved ones, they are very likely to latch on to things that they would like to be true

science is almost never practiced in its ideal form; maybe it's Time to assume that results from our scientific institutions are flawed which is my assumption

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

#14

Post by east2west » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:07 PM UTC

Already reached the conclusion when I saw a genetic researcher presenting his p-value < 10^-40 as better than < 10^-10. I kept my mouth shut because I didn't want to ruin the poor guy's moment in the sun, but I knew it was time to get out.

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

#15

Post by MauranKilom » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

This article talks about "zombie trials" as if it were known to the reader what exactly that means. Anyone who could clue me in?

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

#16

Post by earleybird » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

KittenInABox wrote: post #5

peytn wrote: post #2

No, but you need to be able to ask people who’re “in the know,” e.g. > When Roberts contacted one of the journals the editor responded that “I wouldn’t trust the data.” People already know what the bullshit results are.

How do you know if any individual person is "in the know"?

With an appeal to authority :-)

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

#17

Post by argvargc » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:08 PM UTC

Yes, though it's not much of a problem for those unwilling to take the leap based on only one or two emergent studies, who might prefer relying on decades of safety data.

Oh, but then that entirely sensible and understandable action might get one censored, deleted, fired, fined and/or discriminated against as a third class citizen. Cui bono?

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

#18

Post by adolph » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

Is this some vaccine hesitancy in disguise from BMJ?

Stephen Lock, my predecessor as editor of The BMJ, became worried about research fraud in the 1980s, but people thought his concerns eccentric. Research authorities insisted that fraud was rare, didn’t matter because science was self-correcting, and that no patients had suffered because of scientific fraud. All those reasons for not taking research fraud seriously have proved to be false, and, 40 years on from Lock’s concerns, we are realising that the problem is huge, the system encourages fraud, and we have no adequate way to respond.

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

#19

Post by danuker » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

MauranKilom wrote: post #15

This article talks about "zombie trials" as if it were known to the reader what exactly that means. Anyone who could clue me in?

Following the reference trail leads to this:

> I categorised trials with false data as ‘zombie’ if I thought that the trial was fatally flawed.

https://associationofanaesthetists-publications.onlinelibrar...

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

#20

Post by injidup » Mon, Jul 19, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

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 a research journal but it didn't stop the company using the name of the university alonside exerpts from the paper in marketing material alongside gushing claims of "proved by science".

The company threatened to sue me and the university threatened me as well. Neither has followed through on threats. The company wants to keep selling their rubbish magnetic health ding ding and I assume the university wants nobody to look into how positive results for the product came out of their institution. Allround an education on how the real world works.