4 ms·

Ivermectin Covid-19 Scandal Shows How Vulnerable Science Is to Fraud

8 points by lnyan 5y ago

verdverm 5y ago
I would think that the meta-paper, some years ago, showing less than 50% of paper results are reproducible is much stronger evidence that science has a problem. I have seen a few from different domains that essentially show the same. Seems like this article is cherry picking a few papers to make it's point. Would have been stronger if they had cites these meta-analysis papers across many fields. Guess Ivermectin is a hot search term to make those ad dollars
- yeuxardents 5y ago
  Are you referring to the still ignored replication crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis Experts say, scientists say x may, yet noone talks about the underlying shakiness of all their data.
  - rualca 5y ago
    "shakiness" is not the problem at all because papers are expected to serve as a perpetual source of observations intended to serve as food for thought. Therefore, as knowledge at the bleeding edge is always incomplete and being constructed as we speak, it's very nature is shaky. The problem being discussed is far greater and with far reaching repercussions. The problem is somewhere between bad science pushing bogus ideas and outright scientific fraud. The Royal Society's motto is quite literally "take no one's word for it". That's the Hallmark of science. Yet, today's academia is completely ignoring their most basic tenets and just accepting whatever bullshit idea is peddled by anyone without the faintest requirement of effort to verify it's validity?
  - verdverm 5y ago
    There was a study of psych papers that had worse results than the CS one (which might be cited here https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/8/246369-threats-of-a-replication-crisis-in-empirical-computer-science/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/8/246369-threats-of-a-re...) Having trouble finding them again... I experienced the effects of this as a PhD student. While trying to write a paper and compare results, I was unable to reproduce the competing ideas results. I came across one author who published better results without code or data any time anyone compared to and beat his results. I suspect he is highly fraudulent. He only seems to publish in Springer rather than they typical conferences for the field
13years 5y ago
It is interesting this article is citing a single paper as the substantial foundation of all evidence. It seems this is an overstatement of the source of evidence. https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/ivermectin-meta-analysis:4 https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/ivermectin-meta-...
- nikolay 5y ago
  The war on out off-patent ivermectin is ongoing! It's much better to sell remdesivir and overload people with steroids making them profitable diabetics for life than pay attention to out-of-America studies and try to reproduce them honestly and responsibly!
nikolay 5y ago
So, these [0] are fraud, too? [0]: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/

8 points by lnyan 5y ago

I would think that the meta-paper, some years ago, showing less than 50% of paper results are reproducible is much stronger evidence that science has a problem. I have seen a few from different domains that essentially show the same. Seems like this article is cherry picking a few papers to make it's point. Would have been stronger if they had cites these meta-analysis papers across many fields. Guess Ivermectin is a hot search term to make those ad dollars

yeuxardents 5y ago
Are you referring to the still ignored replication crisis? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis Experts say, scientists say x may, yet noone talks about the underlying shakiness of all their data.
- rualca 5y ago
  "shakiness" is not the problem at all because papers are expected to serve as a perpetual source of observations intended to serve as food for thought. Therefore, as knowledge at the bleeding edge is always incomplete and being constructed as we speak, it's very nature is shaky. The problem being discussed is far greater and with far reaching repercussions. The problem is somewhere between bad science pushing bogus ideas and outright scientific fraud. The Royal Society's motto is quite literally "take no one's word for it". That's the Hallmark of science. Yet, today's academia is completely ignoring their most basic tenets and just accepting whatever bullshit idea is peddled by anyone without the faintest requirement of effort to verify it's validity?
- verdverm 5y ago
  There was a study of psych papers that had worse results than the CS one (which might be cited here https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/8/246369-threats-of-a-replication-crisis-in-empirical-computer-science/fulltext https://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2020/8/246369-threats-of-a-re...) Having trouble finding them again... I experienced the effects of this as a PhD student. While trying to write a paper and compare results, I was unable to reproduce the competing ideas results. I came across one author who published better results without code or data any time anyone compared to and beat his results. I suspect he is highly fraudulent. He only seems to publish in Springer rather than they typical conferences for the field

13years 5y ago

It is interesting this article is citing a single paper as the substantial foundation of all evidence. It seems this is an overstatement of the source of evidence. https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/ivermectin-meta-analysis:4 https://odysee.com/@DarkHorsePodcastClips:b/ivermectin-meta-...

nikolay 5y ago
The war on out off-patent ivermectin is ongoing! It's much better to sell remdesivir and overload people with steroids making them profitable diabetics for life than pay attention to out-of-America studies and try to reproduce them honestly and responsibly!

nikolay 5y ago

So, these [0] are fraud, too? [0]: https://ivmmeta.com/ https://ivmmeta.com/