3 ms·
>"These fucking asshats are going to kill people like you poor uninformed cousins and their kids and take all their money" They have already taken over healthc
by nonbel 10y ago
>"These fucking asshats are going to kill people like you poor uninformed cousins and their kids and take all their money"
They have already taken over healthcare and passed laws to force you to pay for their "help". To get you started: people are quitting cancer reproducibility projects out of disgust for the low quality, and just trying to figure out wtf was done to generate the data is draining all the funds before they can even attempt replication:
"Early on, Begley, who had raised some of the initial objections about irreproducible papers, became disenchanted. He says some of the papers chosen have such serious flaws, such as a lack of appropriate controls, that attempting to replicate them is “a complete waste of time.” He stepped down from the project's advisory board last year.
Amassing all the information needed to replicate an experiment and even figure out how many animals to use proved “more complex and time-consuming than we ever imagined,” Iorns says. Principal investigators had to dig up notebooks and raw data files and track down long-gone postdocs and graduate students, and the project became mired in working out material transfer agreements with universities to share plasmids, cell lines, and mice.
[...]
ALTHOUGH ERRINGTON SAYS many labs have been “excited” and happy to participate, that is not what Science learned in interviews with about one-fourth of the principal investigators on the 50 papers. Many say the project has been a significant intrusion on their lab's time—typically 20, 30, or more emails over many months and the equivalent of up to 2 weeks of full-time work by a graduate student to fill in protocol details and get information from collaborators. Errington concedes that a few groups have balked and stopped communicating, at least temporarily."
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1411 http://www.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1411
Also, it seems 4/5 doctors will tell you there is 95% probability you have a disease when it is actually 98% chance you do not have it, 40 years of education reform has not affected this at all (admittedly, this needs to be repeated on a larger scale, but from personal experience I have no doubt it will hold):
"Nearly 40 years ago the New England Journal of Medicine published a short survey of doctors’ understanding of the results of diagnostic tests.1 The participants, all doctors or medical students at Harvard teaching hospitals, were asked, “If a test to detect a disease whose prevalence is 1/1000 has a false positive rate of 5%, what is the chance that a person found to have a positive result actually has the disease, assuming that you know nothing else about the person’s symptoms or signs?” This wasn’t a very difficult question, which made the results all the more shocking. Fewer than a fifth of participants gave the correct answer, and most thought that the hypothetical patient had a 95% chance of having the disease.
Of course, this was a long time ago, and medical curriculums now contain much more in the way of statistics and probabilistic reasoning. You might expect that if the exercise were repeated today almost everyone would give the right answer. But you’d be wrong. Earlier this year a similar study was carried out, also in hospitals in the Boston area of Massachusetts, and the results were no better.2 Most doctors who were asked exactly the same question thought that the patient had a 95% chance of having the disease."
http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g5619 http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g5619
Medical errors were "unintentionally" left out as a possible official cause of death, then when people actually estimate this, it is a leading cause:
"In 1949, Makary says, the U.S. adopted an international form that used International Classification of Diseases billing codes to tally causes of death...medical errors were unintentionally excluded from national health statistics...based on a total of 35,416,020 hospitalizations, 251,454 deaths stemmed from a medical error, which the researchers say now translates to 9.5 percent of all deaths each year in the U.S...According to the CDC, in 2013, 611,105 people died of heart disease, 584,881 died of cancer, and 149,205 died of chronic respiratory disease—the top three causes of death in the U.S. The newly calculated figure for medical errors puts this cause of death behind cancer but ahead of respiratory disease."
https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-cause-of-death/ https://hub.jhu.edu/2016/05/03/medical-errors-third-leading-...
I could go on if you are interested.
- apathy 10y agoah, Begley, such a saint: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497433a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v497/n7450/full/497433a... This is the guy that published the irreproducible results paper whose results were (of course) irreproducible (since it did not name any). I.e., "trust me on this", the opposite of science. Note above that you can pay for more of his sage wisdom, thanks to the generous NatureMacSpringer megaconglomco. Post everything as a preprint. Submit your trial results to OpenTrials or OpenFDA. Quit killing patients. Maybe work in pediatrics so that, right or wrong, you still won't make any money, so you might as well not kill any excess kids. I'm not bitter or anything, after participating in clinical trials and analysis for over a decade...
- nonbel 10y ago>"I'm not bitter or anything, after participating in clinical trials and analysis for over a decade..." I'd love to hear your story, up to you.
- apathy 10y agoTo be honest it's really only adult trials that are fucked. Well, those and rare diseases with a noisy yet ignorant "advocacy" lobby ("We won't have to pay if the drug doesn't work, the magical Insurance Fairy will pay for it!"). I understand the latter (some hope is better than none, if it's your kid that's sick) but as for the former... ick. Take away the profit motive and it's astounding how much more reliable the trials get. Of course reviewers whine about how they're often equivocal or negative, because the thought of the literature being horribly biased either a) has never crossed their mind (too busy with protocols), or b) is precisely what they want, for "showing progress". So in order to keep up the appearance of positive results and keep the gravy train flowing, the trials that get published tend to be the ones that "show" "progress". Mind you, these are clinical trials with preregistered endpoints and protocols. Pretty much the entirety of experimental science outside of physics is much worse. So what I'm telling you is that this is the BEST-CASE SCENARIO for an awful lot of science. I'm not going to write up "my story" beyond this, because it's the same as most everyone else's story in the field. Killing humans for profit is not my idea of a good time, even if adult trials tend to pay better than the Army. YMMV. I may be jaded, but I still believe there are populations that, through no fault of their own, end up with few or no options. There is room in this world for integrity -- but get (real) money involved and the bad money drives out the good. The linked paper is dead on.