It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Research misconduct often unreported in published studies

page: 1
5

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Source Article: Research misconduct often unreported in published studies

Snippet: "When U.S. health regulators find serious problems with how medical researchers collect their data, the researchers’ final reports often don’t mention it, a new analysis suggests.

Out of 78 published papers reporting on clinical trials in which the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found very serious issues, only three mentioned any violations, the new report says.

“These are major things,” said Charles Seife, a journalism professor and the study’s author. "

Why this is an important issue in my opinion: 1. Researcher misconduct is swept under the rug more or less. 2. Other researchers reading and forming an opinion on the research in question are unaware of flaws in the research. 3 The public will be unlikely to become aware of the potential researcher misconduct which means news articles sighting the research will likely not mention the shenanigans and possible corruption involved.


edit on 03pm2015-03-09T16:58:27-05:0004583America/Chicago58331 by machineintelligence because: spelling




posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:07 PM
link   
I've wondered about that myself. But honestly, most people don't want to know. People want to use their face cream and engine coolant without wondering what animals died horrifically so that it could be modified to be safe for humans. The more I think on the subject, the more I just want to live in a quiet cave. Seriously.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:08 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

This is definitely an issue that needs to be clamped down on but let's keep a level head. This is far from normal practice:


The good news is that such violations are rare, Seife told HealthDay. During the 2013 fiscal year, about 2 percent of the 644 inspections the FDA carried out at clinical trial sites were classified as OAI, according to background information in the study. But when these violations are uncovered, they can be serious enough to undermine the findings reported from the clinical trial. For example: The FDA deemed an entire trial devoted to the blood-thinning drug rivaroxaban unreliable, due to systematic and widespread scientific fraud. Despite this, the findings from the trial were published in a journal with no mention of the FDA's condemnation.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:15 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

Why might this be? It is a very deliberate sabotage of true research. I would go as far to say that sometimes, in cases of misconduct, the very funding depends upon reaching the desired conclusion favourable to commercial enterprise and those funding the research are the company inclined to benefit financially from a certain desired "finding".

Alongside some unscrupulous doctors and health professionals who may seem to be gaining in little perks when they reach targets of "pushing" certain prescribed drugs, the laboratories may benefit in terms of assured funding in a very competitive international industry.

Commercialism has invaded every aspect of our lives where $ potential is identified.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: GetHyped
a reply to: machineintelligence

This is definitely an issue that needs to be clamped down on but let's keep a level head. This is far from normal practice:


The good news is that such violations are rare, Seife told HealthDay. During the 2013 fiscal year, about 2 percent of the 644 inspections the FDA carried out at clinical trial sites were classified as OAI, according to background information in the study. But when these violations are uncovered, they can be serious enough to undermine the findings reported from the clinical trial. For example: The FDA deemed an entire trial devoted to the blood-thinning drug rivaroxaban unreliable, due to systematic and widespread scientific fraud. Despite this, the findings from the trial were published in a journal with no mention of the FDA's condemnation.


There are many horror stories relating to psychiatric drugs where statistics and data relating to side effects as serious as suicide were sat upon and hushed up. It is so much more common than we might think. If we recall the way TEPCO in Japan constantly misrepresented data during the Fukushima nuclear crisis. I can think of so many examples in so many areas of research being manipulated to match a desired outcome. The drug companies are so wealthy it is impossible to beat them in the courtroom.

Also, private research and public research are two entirely different branches. Public research is much more likely to be held accountable than private research. It is a deep old abyss of many skeletons.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: lonesomerimbaud

I'm quoting the source, which is what the OP is about.



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: GetHyped

Ok, I understand.

Here is just one quote demonstrating the kind of studies into misconduct that sums the problem up rather and backs up what I just wrote about the motives. All my life I heard of constant cases. It is very real;

"Objective To investigate whether funding of drug studies by the pharmaceutical industry is associated with outcomes that are favourable to the funder and whether the methods of trials funded by pharmaceutical companies differ from the methods in trials with other sources of support. "

from "J Lexchin, LA Bero, B Djulbegovic, O Clark - Bmj, 2003 - bmj.com"



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:37 PM
link   
a reply to: machineintelligence

The detection of misconduct is rare but that doesn't mean the misconduct itself is rare.

Believing that the misconduct detection rate is 100%, is at best uninformed and at worst overt deception.

Sometimes the stakes are so massive it's not good enough just to lie --an entire alternate reality must be constructed and systematically delivered.

For instance the CDC says this: Regarding 2004 Pediatrics Article, "Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children With Autism and School-matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta"


Access to the information on the birth certificates allowed researchers to assess more complete information on race as well as other important characteristics, including possible risk factors for autism such as the child’s birth weight, mother’s age, and education. This information was not available for the children without birth certificates; hence CDC study did not present data by race on black, white, or other race children from the whole study sample. It presented the results on black and white/other race children from the group with birth certificates.


However one of the original authors of the paper said this:



I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.


The omitted sample of African american children showed a 300% higher chance of autism if they received MMR before 36 months. The narrative you are asked to accept is that the technocrats know what is best for you so. Lots of other studies have been done that negate this. Data anomaly. Not a big deal. There is no evidence vaccines "cause" autism.
Case closed. Stay sharp. Technocrats need to lie in order to retain your confidence
edit on 9-3-2015 by InverseLookingGlass because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass

How many times have you had this point debunked? Many times. And it's not even on topic! Good work /s



posted on Mar, 9 2015 @ 08:49 PM
link   
Interesting. I honestly get annoyed because there are so many people who put so much faith in a scientific study, and will parrot the results, saying things like "this or that" will prevent heart disease, or won't prevent heart disease; or will lower your risk of cancer or raise it, etc...Such "studies" are numerous, and they are often contradictory. I've heard that coffee is bad for you and good for you for the same things, all backed up by such "scientific studies." It is ridiculous. Obviously they all cannot be right when they contradict each other. This thread just made me think of that, and I wanted to vent, lol.




top topics



 
5

log in

join