Live data from Hacker News

How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

reeserichardson.blog

91–97 of 97 posts

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#91
post #49

The guy who uncovered this, Sholto David, is basically just awesome? Watch him cycle from Wales -> China in 90 days: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdgHZPfivVA This isn't his first fraud rodeo either. For his discovery of serious fraud by the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute in 2024, he received $2.6 million. Be more like Sholto, exercise your free will!

I didn't realize whistleblowers could recover part of fraud settlements: > The civil settlement includes the resolution of claims brought under the qui tam or whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act by Sholto David. Under those provisions, a private party can file an action on behalf of the United States and receive a portion of any recovery. David will receive $2,625,000 under today’s settlement. https://ww…

Gather round kids and grab your muskets. The Qui Tam Clan ain't nuthin to fuk wit.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#92
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It definitely isn't a good look but I'm not entirely sure where this lands on "the line drawing on my IKEA instruction manual doesn't look like the furniture" to "VW diesel emissions report" spectrum. I'd appreciate if any bioscientists in the audience could clear that up a bit.

This is 'used car salesman' levels of fraud on that scale. People rapidly acknowledge these antibodies work or they don't. There are websites with reviews of them. However in addition to getting ripped off for a few hundred bucks, these antibodies are generally produced by immunizing animals and by faking this data they are unnecessarily increasing the discomfort to these animals for a fraudulent reason. Look up the…

It's worse than this -- it's often very difficult (expensive, time consuming, etc) to generate the sample being run on the gel, the impact of using a bad or misrepresented antibody are significantly higher than the cost of the antibodies alone.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#93
Unfortunately, the equipment and reagent vendors in the very unregulated life sciences/biomedical research world constitute a racket. Serial buyouts over the last 10 - 15 years have led to a ridiculous degree of consolidation -- the sort that wouldn't fly in a regulated industry, or even one in which regulators are paying any attention at all -- so it's now dominated by two players: Merck (through its MilliporeSigma arm), and Thermo Fisher. The existence of this cartel means that they can essentially get away with murder, both from a fraud angle (which is exactly what the Western blot manipulation is) and by fixing prices to whatever degree they please.

Also unfortunately, biomedical scientists are not known for their tendency to collaborate to face a mutual enemy (the mild pushback against the Elsevier/Springer Nature publishing cartel has come less from scientists and more from university systems whose libraries have to foot most of the bills). From their perspective, it's "What am I gonna do? Raise my own antibodies? Start blowing my own glassware?" So they grimace and bear it.

For reference, here's how their workflow for research antibodies goes (and it's been like this for decades):

1. Produce an antibody the research world needs. Do no QA, that's expensive and unnecessary.

2. Claim with usually no evidence (and apparently by forging evidence) that the antibody works in certain applications.

3. Let researchers buy the antibody and do your QA for you. Even if the antibody doesn't work, only a tiny percentage of buyers will go to the effort of getting a refund.

4. Profit. Keep selling the antibody even when the rare scientist with time on their hands demonstrates beyond doubt that your antibody clearly doesn't work.

5. When sales start drying up because enough people are catching up to the scam, discontinue the antibody. Give no explanation.

6. Repeat from 1.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#94

What would happen if I drank these antibodies?

An antibody is a protein. The acid in your stomach will break down the molecules into their constituent amino acids, which would be absorbed into your bloodstream. The chance that the antibody would have any biological effect before being broken down is slim. Still there are other reasons for not drinking it such as whatever else is in the solution such as preservatives etc.

What if I injected it?

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An antibody is a protein. The acid in your stomach will break down the molecules into their constituent amino acids, which would be absorbed into your bloodstream. The chance that the antibody would have any biological effect before being broken down is slim. Still there are other reasons for not drinking it such as whatever else is in the solution such as preservatives etc.

What if I injected it?

Your insurance will probably deny it, and you'll get a bill. ;-)

My guess is possibly not much, but it could vary greatly from one antibody to another. If the antibody isn't specific to any human protein, then it'll probably end up in your pee eventually. On the other hand, there are therapeutic proteins that are given by injection, so I could hardly suggest that it's intrinsically safe. And antibodies made for medicinal research stand a good chance of existing because of possible human interaction.

Re: How much of Thermo Fisher's antibody data has been manipulated?

#97
post #47

My first, second, and third instinct here is to say this is pretty obvious and sloppy fraud. But it did remind me of the famous case discovered by David Kriesel where Xerox scanners changed documents in surprising ways. The caption on the YouTube video linked here is entertainingly accurate. https://www.dkriesel.com/en/blog/2013/0802_xerox-workcentres... "On the scale of things too horrible to contemplate, "document-…

And now practically every phone camera "enhances" the image via AI that might invent details. Most famously Samsung adding details to photos of the moon.

We faced this problem recently when doing an old-fashioned experiment to test a hypothesis. Can you trust the images from your phone to check if phenomenon X has occurred or not? What if the AI model processing the image just hallucinated what you wanted to see?

It is Descarte's evil demon incarnate. Yet another incentive to preserve my old mirrorless camera.

Post reply on HN