161–170 of 491 posts
So TL;DR I just assume incompetence instead of fraud.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess if you don't even feel comfortable sharing the identity of any of the parties, we really have no chance to identify bad actors from good as a community.
https://shop.powerinsole.com/en/blogs/news/doppelblindstudie... I actually bought one of the devices and took it apart on video. There is nothing inside except 4 magnets and a plastic printed card. No active circuits and no power source and no components such as resistors or capacitors and certainly there is no microchip inside. edit below are links to pictures of the device and accompanying text as originally on fac…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My naive understanding is that "smaller p-value" == "more likely result is true". I know there's always more nuance in statistical reasoning, but the first number is vastly smaller than the second one, right? Is it just that both are hilariously tiny and not credible? Or is there no additional value after you get into the one-in-billions territory?
I estimate the risk of human error (chose the wrong modeling assumptions, bug in data processing code, etc.) at least ~1%, so there really isn't any point in claiming any statistic that is smaller than that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like ivermectin is going through something similar. This off-patent, cheap, and safe drug is able to significantly reduce COVID-19 symptoms [0], and is extremely likely to be a potent prophylactic and treatment for COVID-19 [1], to the extent that the third wave in North America wouldn't have happened if it was used. The inventor, Satoshi Omura, won a Nobel Prize for inventing the drug in 2015, and tried to co…
Honestly I was surprised not to see any mention of IVM in the original post. Many of the points in the original article apply to what's going on with systemic reviews of IVM - see for example allegations of misconduct/fraud by theguardian to Elgazzar's big IVM study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... It does also bring into question the validity of Tess Lowrie's systematic review of iverm…
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 you to form your own opinion. Elgazzar has already been removed as a data point.
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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sadly amused by all this. The complaint I hear about privately done research is it's all tainted by the profit motive, and so research should be funded by the government, as then it'll be pure and untainted by selfish motives. Of course, government funded motives are just as tainted by selfish motives, if not more. Even worse, the people who make the funding decisions aren't spending their own money, so they have…
> At least with privately funded research, the people providing the money aren't going to fund bullshit fake research They absolutely are if it helps them promote something. Cigarettes and asbestos industries helped produce plenty of fake safety studies. The problem is that research has been marketized; you have to "sell" your proposal to get funding, so naturally you big it up as much as possible. And thus the incen…
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.
People cite paper titles like they are facts. Nobody even knows whether or not it was an epidemiology study or an interventional study, they just say “they did a study showing that underwater basket weaving lowers your risk for colon cancer!” Nobody actually reads the studies. During a debate or conversation, many people cite studies in support of their point of view. This is a problem because now the other person is…
There is an emerging cultural mechanism - more a rampaging mob - that says 'X is bullshit' as a simple way of denying facts or issues that are inconvenient or difficult. It's used for the news media, academia, non-partisan government agencies (e.g., the CDC), etc., etc. and for everyone who disagrees.
I say this social mechanism is bullshit - the sources they disregard come with plenty of evidence, saying they are bullshit comes with none - it's just easy to say.
It's also very destructive. Where do we get our epidemiology or news or whatever else if anyone can claim anything is bullshit at any time, halting everything until they are proven wrong? It's up to them to prove their claim right; we can't all halt and freeze in place every time someone makes the minimal effort to vocalize, 'X is bullshit'. Without evidence, their claim is meaningless and should be ignored.
Epidemiology, the imperfect human institution it is, provides many successes.
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…
This is one of the problems I have with the absolute freak show that climate science/global-warming/saving-the-planet has become. It is, at a minimum, a triangle of bad actors with one corner being politicians --fear-based vote harvesting--, the second being business --jump on the bandwagon and print money...facilitated by politicians who want votes in exchange for fear mongering-- and, finally, religious-based detra…
If the author of the most cited paper in a field is going to get all the grants, and a standard "useful" paper is going to get no continued funding - then researchers will push to make their work sensational. Eventually the professors and everyone left in the field is fighting sensational with either outright fraud or alternate funding sources.
Same goes for VC funding of startups, employees at companies, and government programs. The baseline "useful" work is rotting away in favor of aiming to be the top ~5-10%.
It's interesting that it takes an editorial to make people suspicious of statistics, how statistics can be abused, & the conflicts of interests that many people who utilize statistics have. Sample bias needs to be treated as deliberate dishonesty rather than a simple mistake. These people who make these mistakes are professionals and should know better. Their code of conduct should penalize them harshly for making these sort of mistakes.
A strict code of conduct with harsh professional penalties are necessary to remove bad actors who hide behind subtle lies that have a major impact on public policy & public opinion. A slap on the wrist means it's always worthwhile to lie with statistics. A removal of license & banishment from the profession on the 1st or 2nd offense would quickly remove the bad actors. This code of conduct should also extend to the peer review process. If the peers pass bad statistics, the peers need to be held accountable as well.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can be sued by anyone, for anything, at any time. Whether or not that lawsuit has any merit is irrelevant. With certain exceptions based on subject matter (e.g. SLAPP) or jurisdiction, it still costs money to hire a lawyer to defend against the suit.
American law does not apply in Austria