5 ms·

As shown both in the article and in the comments, scientific establishment seems content to tolerate fraud. But when research goes against big money interests,

by dpatru 5y ago

As shown both in the article and in the comments, scientific establishment seems content to tolerate fraud. But when research goes against big money interests, suddenly standards become very strict. See how Andrew Wakefield was treated. https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452 https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7452

Animats 5y ago
There's the famous story of the doctor who figured out, in the 1980s, how to cure stomach ulcers.[1] Stomach ulcers are usually a bacterial disease, and antibiotics work. The microbiologists in Brussels loved it, and by March of 1983 I was incredibly confident. During that year Robin and I wrote the full paper. But everything was rejected. Whenever we presented our stuff to gastroenterologists, we got the same campaign of negativism. I had this discovery that could undermine a $3 billion industry, not just the drugs but the entire field of endoscopy. Every gastroenterologist was doing 20 or 30 patients a week who might have ulcers, and 25 percent of them would. Because it was a recurring disease that you could never cure, the patients kept coming back. And here I was handing it on a platter to the infectious-disease guys. In 2005, he got a Nobel Prize. [1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank-infectious-broth-gave-himself-an-ulcer-and-solved-a-medical-mystery https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank...
- rubatuga 5y ago
  Sounds like ivermectin is going through something similar. This off-patent, cheap, and safe drug is able to significantly reduce COVID-19 symptoms [0], and is extremely likely to be a potent prophylactic and treatment for COVID-19 [1], to the extent that the third wave in North America wouldn't have happened if it was used. The inventor, Satoshi Omura, won a Nobel Prize for inventing the drug in 2015, and tried to convince Merck (the original manufacturer) for many months to conduct an ivermectin trial for COVID-19, to no avail. On July 1st, he finally found a Japanese company called Kowa to charitably conduct a clinical trial for ivermectin, without Merck's help. Amazing right? But what response does Omura get from Western media? Quickly, his announcement video was deleted from YouTube [2]. You cannot find any English news about the Kowa trial being conducted. A few days ago, Omura was interviewed about ivermectin for the first time, on Yahoo Japan News [3]. Quoting him (using non-ideal Google Translate) > "My impression of WHO is that I feel sorry for being caught in a dilemma. Until now, I have only seen bright light in my life as a researcher. But this time, I learned for the first time after reading this article that shadows also exist in the world... Ivermectin is no longer a scientific issue, but a political issue." --Satoshi Omura It seems like big tech's misinformation crusade is biting us and science in the ass. [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33495752/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33495752/ [1]: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/of... [2]: https://twitter.com/michaelcapuzzo/status/1410626769166733317 https://twitter.com/michaelcapuzzo/status/141062676916673331... [3]: https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/92c85ad9476f56a6fc51daec5654cb57b184fa75 https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/92c85ad9476f56a6fc51daec56...
  - kobieyc 5y ago
    Honestly I was surprised not to see any mention of IVM in the original post. Many of the points in the original article apply to what's going on with systemic reviews of IVM - see for example allegations of misconduct/fraud by theguardian to Elgazzar's big IVM study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... It does also bring into question the validity of Tess Lowrie's systematic review of ivermectin efficacy. Also, your systematic review [1] includes the Elgazzar as "low risk" of bias... when in fact Elgazzar had GLARING errors. It also makes me question the competence of everyone involved in this systematic review that they can't find these glaring errors but some random med student can.
    - rubatuga 5y ago
      I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: https://ivmmeta.com https://ivmmeta.com You really cannot trust the raw risk estimates that they give on this site. But it's the most comprehensive list of trials for ivermectin there is, and a place for you to form your own opinion. Elgazzar has already been removed as a data point.
      - closewith 5y ago
        > I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: Surely the point of the OP's post is that the reader can't evaluate these studies on their own. At least not without undertaking the kind of review and background research that is not reasonable for even the expert reader. Not to mention the irony of accusing the GP of cherry-picking when the site you linked is a cherry-picked list of trials curated by anonymous alleged HCWs.
        5y ago
Woberto 5y ago
It took 12 years for the paper to be retracted, so I wouldn't necessarily say "suddenly". Also, I think fraud is easier to miss (which may seem as it being tolerated) if it's something people expect or is not such a big change from the norm. For example, I don't remember the specifics but there's a story of some constant that was estimated a long time ago, and as people tried to measure it more accurately, those who calculated a value too different from the previous estimate were rejected. I bring that up because in this case, Wakefield's claim may have been so outlandish as to provoke intense scrutiny, which, as the paper you linked to says, led to findings of fraud.
pjc50 5y ago
Wakefield was treated far too leniently? He's lucky that he only got struck off, and far too late. He managed to get a lot of media complicity, too.
arcticfox 5y ago
> See how Andrew Wakefield was treated. Are you implying that he was let off easy? Should have gone to jail, IMO: "The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need, without ethical approval." Performing unfounded experiments on children while committing fraud should be treated as criminal, not simply reputation-destroying, IMO. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakef... (I understand we need to protect researchers from some liabilities in the ethical pursuit of progress, but he was so far over the line that the "slippery slope" argument is kind of silly. Should medical researchers be immune to all prosecution no matter what they do or what lies they tell?)
- forcry 5y ago
  >The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need.. Here is what he has to say about it. (Not really justifying, I don't wish to go into an argument about this, which is really, a can of worms at this point) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKghCUUlZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKghCUUlZg
marticode 5y ago
Wakefield got off easy. This video does a good (and humorous) job of reviewing everything that was wrong with him and his study and it's a dense... 1h40m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc

by dpatru 5y ago

Animats 5y ago

There's the famous story of the doctor who figured out, in the 1980s, how to cure stomach ulcers.[1] Stomach ulcers are usually a bacterial disease, and antibiotics work. The microbiologists in Brussels loved it, and by March of 1983 I was incredibly confident. During that year Robin and I wrote the full paper. But everything was rejected. Whenever we presented our stuff to gastroenterologists, we got the same campaign of negativism. I had this discovery that could undermine a $3 billion industry, not just the drugs but the entire field of endoscopy. Every gastroenterologist was doing 20 or 30 patients a week who might have ulcers, and 25 percent of them would. Because it was a recurring disease that you could never cure, the patients kept coming back. And here I was handing it on a platter to the infectious-disease guys. In 2005, he got a Nobel Prize. [1] https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank-infectious-broth-gave-himself-an-ulcer-and-solved-a-medical-mystery https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/the-doctor-who-drank...

rubatuga 5y ago
Sounds like ivermectin is going through something similar. This off-patent, cheap, and safe drug is able to significantly reduce COVID-19 symptoms [0], and is extremely likely to be a potent prophylactic and treatment for COVID-19 [1], to the extent that the third wave in North America wouldn't have happened if it was used. The inventor, Satoshi Omura, won a Nobel Prize for inventing the drug in 2015, and tried to convince Merck (the original manufacturer) for many months to conduct an ivermectin trial for COVID-19, to no avail. On July 1st, he finally found a Japanese company called Kowa to charitably conduct a clinical trial for ivermectin, without Merck's help. Amazing right? But what response does Omura get from Western media? Quickly, his announcement video was deleted from YouTube [2]. You cannot find any English news about the Kowa trial being conducted. A few days ago, Omura was interviewed about ivermectin for the first time, on Yahoo Japan News [3]. Quoting him (using non-ideal Google Translate) > "My impression of WHO is that I feel sorry for being caught in a dilemma. Until now, I have only seen bright light in my life as a researcher. But this time, I learned for the first time after reading this article that shadows also exist in the world... Ivermectin is no longer a scientific issue, but a political issue." --Satoshi Omura It seems like big tech's misinformation crusade is biting us and science in the ass. [0]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33495752/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33495752/ [1]: https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ofid/ofab358/6316214 https://academic.oup.com/ofid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/of... [2]: https://twitter.com/michaelcapuzzo/status/1410626769166733317 https://twitter.com/michaelcapuzzo/status/141062676916673331... [3]: https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/92c85ad9476f56a6fc51daec5654cb57b184fa75 https://news.yahoo.co.jp/articles/92c85ad9476f56a6fc51daec56...
- kobieyc 5y ago
  Honestly I was surprised not to see any mention of IVM in the original post. Many of the points in the original article apply to what's going on with systemic reviews of IVM - see for example allegations of misconduct/fraud by theguardian to Elgazzar's big IVM study https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-supporting-ivermectin-as-covid-treatment-withdrawn-over-ethical-concerns https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/jul/16/huge-study-s... It does also bring into question the validity of Tess Lowrie's systematic review of ivermectin efficacy. Also, your systematic review [1] includes the Elgazzar as "low risk" of bias... when in fact Elgazzar had GLARING errors. It also makes me question the competence of everyone involved in this systematic review that they can't find these glaring errors but some random med student can.
  - rubatuga 5y ago
    I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: https://ivmmeta.com https://ivmmeta.com You really cannot trust the raw risk estimates that they give on this site. But it's the most comprehensive list of trials for ivermectin there is, and a place for you to form your own opinion. Elgazzar has already been removed as a data point.
    - closewith 5y ago
      > I agree, some of the trials have issues. But if you would like to cherry pick one trial and use that as evidence to the contrary, I will direct the reader to a firehose of ivermectin studies, which the reader can evaluate on their own: Surely the point of the OP's post is that the reader can't evaluate these studies on their own. At least not without undertaking the kind of review and background research that is not reasonable for even the expert reader. Not to mention the irony of accusing the GP of cherry-picking when the site you linked is a cherry-picked list of trials curated by anonymous alleged HCWs.
      - 5y ago

Woberto 5y ago

It took 12 years for the paper to be retracted, so I wouldn't necessarily say "suddenly". Also, I think fraud is easier to miss (which may seem as it being tolerated) if it's something people expect or is not such a big change from the norm. For example, I don't remember the specifics but there's a story of some constant that was estimated a long time ago, and as people tried to measure it more accurately, those who calculated a value too different from the previous estimate were rejected. I bring that up because in this case, Wakefield's claim may have been so outlandish as to provoke intense scrutiny, which, as the paper you linked to says, led to findings of fraud.

pjc50 5y ago

Wakefield was treated far too leniently? He's lucky that he only got struck off, and far too late. He managed to get a lot of media complicity, too.

arcticfox 5y ago

> See how Andrew Wakefield was treated. Are you implying that he was let off easy? Should have gone to jail, IMO: "The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need, without ethical approval." Performing unfounded experiments on children while committing fraud should be treated as criminal, not simply reputation-destroying, IMO. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakefield-mmr-vaccine https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/jan/28/andrew-wakef... (I understand we need to protect researchers from some liabilities in the ethical pursuit of progress, but he was so far over the line that the "slippery slope" argument is kind of silly. Should medical researchers be immune to all prosecution no matter what they do or what lies they tell?)

forcry 5y ago
>The panel found he had subjected 11 children to invasive tests such as lumbar punctures and colonoscopies that they did not need.. Here is what he has to say about it. (Not really justifying, I don't wish to go into an argument about this, which is really, a can of worms at this point) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKghCUUlZg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEKghCUUlZg

marticode 5y ago

Wakefield got off easy. This video does a good (and humorous) job of reviewing everything that was wrong with him and his study and it's a dense... 1h40m https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BIcAZxFfrc