It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
The study author searched the PubMed database for every scientific research paper that had been withdrawn—and therefore officially expunged from the public record—between 2000 and 2010.
A total of 788 papers had been retracted during this period. Around three quarters of these papers had been withdrawn because of a serious error (545); the rest of the retractions were attributed to fraud (data fabrication or falsification).
The highest number of retracted papers were written by US
Although wine may be the oldest remedy and prophylactic still in use, there was an entire generation of medical professionals, especially in America, that obtained their medical education during the historical period known as Prohibition. Medical texts for nearly twenty-five years were purged and censored of any mention of alcohol, including wine, for any application other than external. This medical generation became educators to the following one, perpetuating medical ignorance of the potential health benefits of wine.
In the 1970s, the National Institute of Health excluded and suppressed evidence from the Framingham Heart Study that showed moderate drinkers had 50 per cent fewer deaths from coronary disease than non-drinkers.
Originally posted by indigothefish
now i know that science and medicine was in a different place then than now, but i see a trend in the way america does things like this, i mean right now ( 2010 ) we are still under prohibition of marijuana plant, and you can see some great similiarities between the covering up of benifitial information about that plant today as there was on red wine during the alcohol prohibition!
Originally posted by dolphinfan
There is a "study" out today which states that 20% of Americans are mentally ill. Exactly how is that determined? Who paid for the research? How can something by its very nature be subjective be pushed out as science?
What are the odds that either the mental health industry or big pharma funded in part, either directly or through shell organizations this work? Pretty slim.
In a review of influenza vaccine studies published in the British Medical Journal Tom Jefferson, M.D., Ph.D. (Cochrane Field, Rome, Italy) and colleagues found that published influenza vaccine studies sponsored by industry are treated more favorably by medical journals even when the studies are of poor quality.
"This independent Cochrane review confirms that drug companies marketing vaccines have undue influence on what gets published in medical journals about vaccine safety and effectiveness,"
there is no dispute that much of the science was poorly conducted.
Originally posted by dolphinfan
This is not surprising. Science in the US is heavily influenced by corporate and political interests and scientists seeking fame, grant cash and nice acedemic positions have a significant incentive to either do shoddy work or to simply to commit fraud.
We can see that the US has a slightly higher [than average] estimated rate of retraction due to fraud, which corresponds to about 30% more fraud per paper than average. But China and India have higher rates of retraction due to fraud than the US (and p-value fans will be happy to know that they are both statistically significance, with lots of stars to make you happy). China has about 3 times as many fraud retractions per paper as average, and India 5 times as many.