6 ms·
If you read the article, the headline is wildly editorialized. Whatever. Par for the course in 2023, right? But this is Nature, a paragon of scientific litera
by appleflaxen 3y ago
If you read the article, the headline is wildly editorialized.
Whatever. Par for the course in 2023, right?
But this is Nature, a paragon of scientific literature, fueling the distrust of medicine.
There are great reasons to be skeptical of all trials and strengthen peer review and transparency, but this kind of headline is editorial malpractice, in my opinion.
- bmh 3y ago[flagged]
- defrost 3y ago[flagged]
- swader999 3y ago[flagged]
- LatteLazy 3y ago[flagged]
- ekianjo 3y agoCloser to 50% of trials are probably junk since they cant be reproduced independently
- throw9away6 3y agoThat’s being generous as only 1/10 can actually be fully reproduced from my understanding. It’s so bad that if you want to create a product based on research your first need to reproduce the result to make sure it’s not bs.
- MichaelZuo 3y agoI haven't heard of the 10% figure before, can you link to the source?
- dennis_jeeves1 3y agoHeuristics.
- burkaman 3y agoCan you share what you read in that book that is relevant to this article?
- llamaimperative 3y agoRFK Jr is just a blatant, proven liar. Here's one such case that I'll point out only because the bullshitting is so clear: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-vaccines/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/robert-f-kennedy-jr-... He claims to have worked with Tapper for "three weeks on a documentary" (they worked for 2 days on a 2-minute spot) that was "killed by corporate" (it went live one day later than planned). I'd recommend not using pathological liars' words as evidence for other claims.
- smrtinsert 3y agoI can't think of anyone less qualified to write on the matter than RFK jr, maybe MTG.
- logicchains 3y agoWell his book is well-sourced so fortunately you don't have to take him at his word, you can check the references if you want.
- LorenPechtel 3y agoDoesn't preclude being very deceptive with the facts.
- ramraj07 3y agoThere's a difference between a scientist calling bs on some scientific practices than a grifting, crazed group of people calling bs on it. Can you cite the exact trials from your source that are potentially problematic so we can discuss the actual legitimacy of the methodology?
- taeric 3y agoAgreed that the headline makes it sound like a strong majority, when the article isn't nearly as strong on that. Still, "Carlisle rejected every zombie trial, but by now, almost three years later, most have been published in other journals — sometimes with different data to those submitted with the manuscript he had seen. He is writing to journal editors to alert them, but expects that little will be done." is concerning. I'm almost afraid to know what the list of rejected papers covers.
- peteradio 3y agoIf a quarter of your body was covered in leaches would you consider yourself plagued by leaches?
- taeric 3y agoI mean, fair that "plagued by" is a very vague term that has no quantifiable meaning. But appeals to emotion to cast doubt on all studies is frustrating. "Healthy skepticism in the face of bad studies" would be a great headline and is accurate. But too much of the skepticism we are exposed to on a regular basis is not healthy.
- peteradio 3y agoIf 1/4 of all studies have fundamental data issues then that means in some corners we are making medical decisions based on bunk, that absolutely is a plague. Why moderate the language to extenuate?
- twic 3y agoNo, not really. The headline says "plagued with", the subhead says "in some fields, at least one-quarter of clinical trials might be problematic or even entirely made up", and the article substantiates that. One quarter of all trials is more than adequate to plague the whole enterprise, and there isn't a problem with this headline.
- ethanbond 3y agoAh yes, the greatest of all weasel words: "problematic."
- peteradio 3y agoWant to find out what they mean by "problematic"? Read beyond the subhead..
- notjoemama 3y agoThat word has gotten a bad wrap by people on social media using it without substantiating it, or hiding behind an excuse of "Google it"; meaning 'I know but you don't so go educate yourself because I'm subtextually declaring your opinion invalid by way of your ignorance'. We are seemingly in a fifth generation war amongst ourselves for the prizes of attention and public acceptance. Or more succinctly, "being right on the internet". What may in fact be the next great filter. :)
- bowsamic 3y agoWe should be distrustful of medicine, of all science in general. Ignoring flawed methodologies or inconclusive results just means it's no longer science, it's ideology. I'm a physicist though so perhaps I could be overly jaded about science and peer review compared to most scientists
- dekhn 3y agoYou simply can't apply the rules of publication in physics to medical biology research. Even highly quantitative biology is noticeably different in terms of standards of proof and quality of models.
- bowsamic 3y agoAre you saying that we should be less distrustful of medical biology than of physics? I don’t see why that should be so
- dekhn 3y agono, the other way around (obviously?)
- bowsamic 3y agoBut, that’s my point. I’m telling you that you should be distrustful of physics, so you should be really distrustful of medical science
- dekhn 3y agoI haven't seen any real serious replication problems in physics that didn't get cleared up, or anything else that would make me doubt the results. I would generalize the statement: assuming a reductive order of sciences (medicine->biology->chemistry->physics), if one cannot trust a layer, it seems even more likely that layers above it should be trusted even less.
- jononomo 3y agoIt has been since the introduction of peer review that science has taken a nose-dive. Peer-review is just such a terrible idea. All it does is bring politics and back-stabbing into science.