Re:How many medical studies are faked or flawed?
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 on Tuesday September 19, 2023 @04:26PM
(#37576026)
"It's difficult to imagine why studies where a positive outcome is a gateway to billions of dollars in profits, while a negative outcome would result in substantial losses, might end up somehow less than accurate."
Note that "studies" generally means "clinical studies" and this is also true for the Wikipedia reference. That's only one category of scientific publication.
Today we see people trying to cast doubt on all scientific research based on examination of clinical or pre-clinical studies. Then we have people who want to weaken the powers FDA. Would that increase or decrease the amount of fake/flawed data. No doubt the US could be the world leader in Snake Oil if we just got rid of all those burdensome FDA requirements.
Sometimes when a company is developing a therapeutic, a paper is published by an academic that in some way casts doubt on the future potential of the therapeutic. The company's management may become quite distressed; they may try to sign an agreement with the author with confidentiality provisions in order to silence him. The company may try to portray the author as a "maverik" in the scientific community, but the paper is never assumed to be flawed/fake. It is taken seriously.
The point is that even if there is a preponderance of fake/flawed data in scientific publications, we still have to separate the wheat from the chaff. We have to do that work. The "30%" cannot be dismissed or ignored. We cannot just assume all, or even most, papers are untrustworthy. (Or vice versa.)
Note that "studies" generally means "clinical studies" and this is also true for the Wikipedia reference. That's only one category of scientific publication.
Today we see people trying to cast doubt on all scientific research based on examination of clinical or pre-clinical studies. Then we have people who want to weaken the powers FDA. Would that increase or decrease the amount of fake/flawed data. No doubt the US could be the world leader in Snake Oil if we just got rid of all those burdensome FDA requirements.
Sometimes when a company is developing a therapeutic, a paper is published by an academic that in some way casts doubt on the future potential of the therapeutic. The company's management may become quite distressed; they may try to sign an agreement with the author with confidentiality provisions in order to silence him. The company may try to portray the author as a "maverik" in the scientific community, but the paper is never assumed to be flawed/fake. It is taken seriously.
The point is that even if there is a preponderance of fake/flawed data in scientific publications, we still have to separate the wheat from the chaff. We have to do that work. The "30%" cannot be dismissed or ignored. We cannot just assume all, or even most, papers are untrustworthy. (Or vice versa.)