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

451–460 of 491 posts

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

#451

Post by onlyrealcuzzo »

patrec wrote: post #245
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're a psychopath or paranoid if you don't blindly trust data - without putting some effort into seeing what the quality of the data is and how much evidence supports it???

> I'm not convinced a low-trust society is inherently bad. The term "low-trust society" is generally not used to distinguish societies where people put enough emphasis into seeing what the quality of the data is and how much evidence supports it. Maybe because no one ever heard of such a thing. I do share your lack of conviction that such a society would inherently be a bad thing. Maybe we in fact agree that a low tr…

> Maybe we in fact agree that a low trust society in the conventional sense -- one characterized by low interpersonal trust -- is less appealing?

Are you talking about ideals?

Of course, I'd love to live in a high-trust society! Why not?

I'd much rather be able to blindly trust everything than do my own due diligence.

The problem is that a few bad apples can do A LOT of damage.

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

#452

Post by tshaddox »

zepto wrote: post #449
tshaddox wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those are factual claims about the protests being less risky than the rallies. They’re either true or false. There’s nothing hypocritical here where anyone is saying it’s okay to attend one event and not the other because of the purpose of the event. It’s literally claiming that one event is outdoors and attendees tend to follow health guidelines, while the other event is indoors and attendees tend to not follow heal…

> It’s literally claiming that one event is outdoors and attendees tend to follow health guidelines Yes - and it’s not true - there is plenty of footage of protesters not following health guidelines, and indeed plenty of discussion of how the protests may have precipitated a covid spike. The fact that other similar events were not permitted proves the hypocrisy in the public health guidance regardless of the outcome.…

> If you don’t think there is any political bias in public health policy, that’s fine, but it seems like we are in disagreement about that.

This is a significant altering of the goal posts. But anyway, you seem convinced it's all part of some huge partisan battle where you're sure that your side is the good side and everything is stacked against your side. I'm not part of this battle.

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

#453

Post by supperburg »

wolverine876 wrote: post #450
supperburg wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it isn’t a randomized interventional study, and apparently now even those are subject to fraud, it doesn’t prove anything. They shouldn’t be discussed except in cases where a real study is impossible (global warming) or when trying to reason about which hypothesis should be tested next. It’s definitely a vein of ripe shit in our society, the misuse of epidemiology.

Says who? Where is your randomized interventional study that we should be listening to you? The only information the world can utilize is from randomized interventional studies? Almost everything is going to have to shut down.

Word vomit

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

#454

Post by birdyrooster »

dcow wrote: post #306
javajosh wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Naming and shaming" comes with risk - probably a lot more risk than upside. The risk is that the parties get something actionable, kind of like "probable cause" in criminal cases. The upside is maybe a small effect on a few HN minds that might remember this when considering this Uni's reputation. The other risk is that it's an act that can easily be abused. It is very easy to level charges against someone without pr…

It also might potentially identify the person posting the comments which if pseudonymity is important might contribute to the calculus.

For a second I considered that I was arguing the same as a spook trying to unmask

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

#455

Post by zepto »

tshaddox wrote: post #452
zepto wrote: post #449

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s literally claiming that one event is outdoors and attendees tend to follow health guidelines Yes - and it’s not true - there is plenty of footage of protesters not following health guidelines, and indeed plenty of discussion of how the protests may have precipitated a covid spike. The fact that other similar events were not permitted proves the hypocrisy in the public health guidance regardless of the outcome.…

> If you don’t think there is any political bias in public health policy, that’s fine, but it seems like we are in disagreement about that. This is a significant altering of the goal posts. But anyway, you seem convinced it's all part of some huge partisan battle where you're sure that your side is the good side and everything is stacked against your side. I'm not part of this battle.

> This is a significant altering of the goal posts.

Not really - it’s a matter of degree. When there is too much bias displayed, it stops being public health and is discredited.

> you seem convinced it's all part of some huge partisan battle where you're sure that your side is the good side and everything is stacked against your side.

This seems like pure imagination on your part. I suggest you reread the thread. You’ll see no evidence anything partisan from me.

I simply think that public health officials have undermined trust by politicizing the issues or otherwise distorted their message. I.e. they have ‘discredited’ the field as the other poster said.

> I'm not part of this battle.

Are you sure? You are the only one reading this conversation and seeing a ‘battle’.

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

#456

Post by adolph »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #417
adolph wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t think Laplace would call reasoning without data (the commenter’s avowed position) Bayesian.

Zero data of the effects after three years . Plenty of data about the effects after one. It's not “reasoning without data”; it's reasoning without as much data as one would have liked. Are you doing this on purpose?

The commenter did not say the results of one year were under consideration. They described a state of recommendation without information. Besides, March to July isn’t even half a year for phase 3 trials.

https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04811664

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

#458

Post by brutusborn »

zepto wrote: post #426
brutusborn wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I completely agree that the term science has many meanings which include the overall body of knowledge which includes bad studies. However I can't understand why bad studies would be fundamental to "humans doing science"? You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own, so why does bad science need to be part of the mix? Can't we choose to ignore them or treat them with skepticism?

> You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own Usually you do need to rely on other people’s results.

But why? Is it because you can't tell good studies from bad? If so, doesn't that mean that you shouldn't be using these studies in the first place?

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

#459

Post by zepto »

brutusborn wrote: post #458
zepto wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You don't need to take other research results as correct to do your own Usually you do need to rely on other people’s results.

But why? Is it because you can't tell good studies from bad? If so, doesn't that mean that you shouldn't be using these studies in the first place?

Isn’t that the whole point? It does in fact seem that scientists in general are not good at telling good studies from had. Why would this be surprising?

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

#460

Post by lmm »

naasking wrote: post #405
lmm wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> There's no honesty anywhere - or rather, the honest people get squeezed out of the field. Well that's an unsupported conjecture that I see no reason to accept. > Changing the subject like this is a huge red flag that you're using motivated reasoning Where is the motivated reasoning in acknowledging that climate change is not the only reason to replace fossil fuels?

> Well that's an unsupported conjecture that I see no reason to accept.

I base it on having friends who were in the field; of course that won't be particularly convincing to you. (I'm pretty sure others in these comments had examples of people being pushed out for reaching the "wrong" conclusions, but I have to be honest that I'm trusting the people I know personally rather than anything else).

> Where is the motivated reasoning in acknowledging that climate change is not the only reason to replace fossil fuels?

Suggesting that climate change is likely to be true because you have non-climate-change reasons to want to replace fossil fuels is motivated reasoning. The fact that you brought up non-climate-change problems with fossil fuels in a thread about whether climate change is occurring suggests that you're doing it.

Post reply on HN