Medical Research Fraud

Here's one that got caught.

How many other researchers are thieving tricksters?

www.heraldscotland.com...

Dr Robert Ryan, who has received almost £1.1 million in grants for his groundbreaking work in molecular bacteriology, has been suspended from his senior post at Dundee University.

The extent of the alleged misconduct is unclear, however reports suggest it may have spanned a number of years and involved numerous prestigious scientific journals.

The allegations are a blow not only to Dundee University, recognised as a world leader in life sciences, but also to institutions around the world who have worked with Dr Ryan.

. . .

Dr Ryan has received extensive public funding as a senior research fellow for the Wellcome trust, the world’s largest medical research charity, where he is at the forefront of global research which could lead to new treatments for cystic fibrosis.

However it is claimed he used identical images across multiple papers, claiming they were different strains. In some cases, it is alleged the evidence was flipped or rotated, which could indicate an “intent to deceive”, according to the source.

www.lifesci.dundee.ac.uk...

amr.dundee.ac.uk...


I know someone who got a grant to do something that had already been done. He was unaware he was duplicating someone else's work. He said the reason he got the grant was because he had described what he wanted to do in such a different way no-one realised it was an area already covered. He didn't own up, he just kept the money and carried on.

How many medical researchers have fallen for the temptation? Is the medical research world crawling with deceit, or is this really an exceptional case of dishonesty?

a reply to: Kester

How many other researchers are thieving tricksters?

you'd be surprised

a reply to: Kester

Great thread Kester - the best way to sound reputable is by conducting a "study" and getting the results you want to try to sell something

Half of All The Medical Literature is False

a reply to: FamCore

The influence of corrupt psychology research is possibly terrible.

a reply to: Kester

I guess if there are big $$ and prestige it would be easy to sway younger researchers into the lime light . Peer review can easily become pal review and even the reviewers at times dont seem to be capable of watching the pea . Climate Audit is a good read to see how these frauds are conducted and what should be big news in MSM gets little to no coverage .The court cases are hush hushed up and in some cases can take a very very long time .

One such report that is only on a blog is silenced on other sites and will never show up on MSM . This is about some climate papers that once they are unwound become the norm for the AGW political movement .

Conclusion An RCS chronology calculated according to the stated methodology of Cook et al 2000 yields an entirely different result than that reported by Cook. In my opinion, Cook, like Gergis et al 2012, did not use the procedure described at length in the article – in Cook’s case, he did not use the RCS procedure described in the article as a method to preserve low-frequency variability. In my opinion, Cook’s chronology was most likely produced using a variation of “traditional” standardization that did not preserve low frequency variability. Cook’s chronology has been used over and over in multiproxy studies: Mann et al 1998, Jones et al 1998, Mann and Jones 2003, IPCC AR4, Mann et al 2008; most recently, Gergis et al 2016 and Esper et al 2016. Despite its repeated use, one can only conclude that no climate scientist ever looked closely at Cook’s actual chronology, a conclusion circumstantially supported by the persistence of gross errors in the Cook measurement data, even in the Esper et al 2016 version, issued more than 20 years after the original measurements. The actual RCS chronology for Mt Read has elevated values in the late first millennium and early second millennium. Gergis et al evidently calculated such a chronology and, in another flagrant instance of ex post cherry picking, decided to use the ancient Cook chronology, which turns out to have been erroneously calculated (like Gergis et al 2012, one might add). Use of the Mt Read RCS chronology and Law Dome series would obviously lead to substantially different results in the medieval period where Gergis only used two proxies.

climateaudit.org...-22805

a reply to: Kester

The CDC wants you to believe them and not your eyes. The CDC has proved vaccines induce autism at least twice. Research it yourselves

search "Thimerisol+CDC+Simpsonwood" for the first time. They quietly eliminated Thimerisol from most vaccines. Do your research to find out which ones still have it.

search "CDC Whistleblower Bill Posey" to find the other case whee they just chucked the data and made stuff up.

And finally the curious case of Paul Thorsen. He is wanted for research fraud and embezzlement by Interpol. His name appears on more than 20 of the 24 studies the CDC cites to claim vaccines don't induce autism. Some of these studies show vaccines prevent autism. Go figure Link to story

If you injured 100 of thousands of children you would want to cover it up too. They are all in. Making them mandatory cradle to grave is the goal. Enjoy the free dumb.

A lot of people are chasing the almighty buck in science, they will make up grants for research projects that are not even necessary. Replication is going on everywhere, they need more people to start putting it all together.