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

191–200 of 491 posts

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

#191

Post by tarere »

I will address the elephant in the room on this one.

168 comments so far, I did a research for word "vaccine" in the page, not a single result. So I assume this has not been discussed despite the current situation we are living right now.

I've just read 2 articles about Moderna in general and Bancel in particular : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-14/moderna-m... And Vanity Fair, unfortunatly in french https://www.vanityfair.fr/pouvoir/business/story/stephane-ba...

This is a frightenning read as we people in France are being literraly forced by our gouvernement to be vaccinated (Moderna, Pfizer) or be socially terminated.

I did not know, I'm pretty sure 99,99% of people also don't, that Moderna did not release a single product before 2020 and it "all in" bet in the Covid Vaccine with up to 1 billion funding from operation warp speed. Moderna was sometimes refered as the next Theranos. His leader fits clearly in the sociopath territory of Silicon Valley tranhsumanist billionnaires. "risk very big, win very big" is his mantra, this man wants to vaccinate billions of people annualy (read article please).

More, if you read those two articles, you could change Vaccine by any software product and you would have a typical business article about a Silicon Valley startup. This is frightening to death to think that this technology "software vaccine" is to be used on the whole population with only a few month of study and, worse, with "forced consentment" on populations.

Guess what happens when money conflict with health.

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

#192

Post by bluGill »

bmn__ wrote: post #145
dpifke wrote: post #106

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

True, but while I don't know Austria's laws, I know that in any country that isn't fully corrupt (and even in many of them) anyone can take anyone to court for anything. There are different rules around loser pays (there is no good answer here - only bad compromises) and how fast the judge will dismiss fraudulent claims, but if there is anyone who can't get a day in court over a legitimize issues the country is corrupt. Austria isn't perfect (no country is), but there international reputation isn't nearly bad enough that I would expect someone to be unable to get your in court for anything they want.

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

#193

Post by exact_string »

injidup wrote: post #130
OriginalNebula wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Try to contact the other two. You can reach Peter Kolba here https://www.verbraucherschutzverein.at/Kontakt/ or on Twitter even https://twitter.com/KolbaPeter . He won the case against Volkswagen so if anyone can help you then him. The University of Salzburg also has a "Ethikkommission" https://www.plus.ac.at/service/uni-administration/gesamtuniv... and "Kommission zur Sicherung guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis" https…

tweet sent https://twitter.com/sltyhkr/status/1417213194540625925

I don't understand what the problem is: The data in the double-blind study clearly shows no statistically significant effects (just look at N and the standard deviation bars) and the company doesn't claim that there would be such effects.

The company only says there is a "positive trend" which there indeed is.

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

#194

Post by naasking »

robomartin wrote: post #156
injidup wrote: post #20

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…

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. Not just for climate change reasons, but overall human health. For instance, air pollution from fossil fuels kills tens of thousands of people every year.

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

#195

Post by nabla9 »

tarere wrote: post #191

I will address the elephant in the room on this one. 168 comments so far, I did a research for word "vaccine" in the page, not a single result. So I assume this has not been discussed despite the current situation we are living right now. I've just read 2 articles about Moderna in general and Bancel in particular : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-14/moderna-m... And Vanity Fair, unfortunatly in french…

No results because vaccines are not accepted based on publications and peer review on scientific papers.

They go trough completely different and extremely rigorous testing process where everything is documented carefully, documents are examined and double checked.

It's great to see 168 comments before first anti-vaxxer comment.

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

#196

Post by robomartin »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #160
robomartin wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Are you a scientist?

> Are you a scientist?

How is that relevant to my comment?

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

#197

Post by tarere »

nabla9 wrote: post #195
tarere wrote: post #191

I will address the elephant in the room on this one. 168 comments so far, I did a research for word "vaccine" in the page, not a single result. So I assume this has not been discussed despite the current situation we are living right now. I've just read 2 articles about Moderna in general and Bancel in particular : https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2021-07-14/moderna-m... And Vanity Fair, unfortunatly in french…

No results because vaccines are not accepted based on publications and peer review on scientific papers. They go trough completely different and extremely rigorous testing process where everything is documented carefully, documents are examined and double checked. It's great to see 168 comments before first anti-vaxxer comment.

I was speaking of the HN page discussion, but it seems my search on Firefox is completely broken, so I withdraw my mention of no vaccine reference, but I stand to be commented on the subject.

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

#198

Post by mahogany »

metalliqaz wrote: post #151
mcguire wrote: post #113

" ...Ian Roberts, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, began to have doubts about the honest reporting of trials after a colleague asked if he knew that his systematic review showing the mannitol halved death from head injury was based on trials that had never happened. He didn’t, but he set about investigating the trials and confirmed that they hadn’t ever happened. They all…

well if the original studies are inadequate simply because N is too low, then grouping many of them can resolve that problem.

Is that really true from a statistical standpoint? It seems to me that running ten 20-person studies is different and less valuable than running a single 200 person study, because each of the 20-person studies has a much larger error range that you have to account for. But I'm also not good with stats.

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

#200

Post by bluGill »

hellbannedguy wrote: post #175
bserge wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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)

While I agree with the sentiment, anyone on long term medication needs regular monitors by a doctor anyway. If you are only 25 this won't make sense, but by the time you get to 50 you need regular checkups for lots of things that are best caught early. I've lost enough family to colon cancer (spouse of a second cousin - can I even claim him as family?), and several others are only alive now because their cancer was caught in time. Then there is heart problems which again are best treated before the heart attack (if possible) - I just named the two most common killers of old people that you can be sure is in your family and coming to get you in the future (I know of exceptions - genetic disorders that will kill at 50 or so), but regular doctors visit can hold off.
Post reply on HN