2 ms·
Wow, that's bonkers. I wonder if any of these papers has definitely convinced a decision-maker to pursue or avoid a particular course of treatment. IE, has so
by jMyles 10y ago
Wow, that's bonkers.
I wonder if any of these papers has definitely convinced a decision-maker to pursue or avoid a particular course of treatment. IE, has someone literally died because of this?
It seems likely, but these papers are only a year or two old.
In any case, this kind of happening is why it's difficult anymore to see "peer review" as being tantamount to a verification that a conclusion was reached via rigorous science.
Moreover, it's what makes many people who do care about science wonder if "modern medicine" is really first-and-foremost science-based any more. There seems to be an awful lot of armchair BS making it through this process.
- fabian2k 10y agoFrom a quick glance at the list of papers this seems to be mostly basic research. This makes it less likely that it could have affected treatment decisions. The formal peer review during publication is a very coarse filter, and not well suited to catch outright fraud. It's more of a quick sanity check than an in depth examination. The real verification happens once other scientists build on that paper and perform new experiments.