Validity of research results.
by business_kid from LinuxQuestions.org on (#5HMTN)
https://science.slashdot.org/story/2...hing-is-a-joke
I started slightly skeptical, because I was an assistant in many Electronic papers where real risks were disguised, problems ignored or skirted around, lies told and so forth. My name was on none of them (I was 'only' a technician at the time) but in one case I flat out contradicted a professor, and won the whole department around to my side inside a few months, as his product bombed exactly where I predicted.
So reading the link above along with other info
The medical practices of the FDA are noteworthy. A manufacturer has to produce two favourable papers. Said manufacturer may plough under or shred any number of negative reviews, which happens. The FDA don't want to see all the research, just the positive papers. The work of doing the "research" in the form of trials is usually contracted out, and the contractor has to do the trials. If a lie is told on the 'randomly' selected line, it would be very difficult to prove. Let's illustrate a sample double blind trial of 100, with half given the drug. So your sample size per trial is 50.
The drug's efficiency is just over 20%, but there are side effects in many. So 11/50 improve. But if you do 5 such trials, then 55 people will improve. Now two "random" trials can be organised, one with 27/50 & the other with 28/50 improving. Severe effects can be listed an minor, and you're good to go with FDA approval. Sales talk will say 'No known side effects.'
And even with a class action lawsuit, the drug company can recover the costs by price increases. All these cures for osteoporosis prescribed have lost class actions costing them $10 - $15 millions in the States alone. The reason is simple: the bones naturally destroy old bone, and build new bone in accord with your exercise pattern. So Space Shuttle astronauts in weightlessness all take a big calcium hit. These osteoporosis drugs can only redistribute existing (and insufficient) existing calcium in bones. There are class actions against them
https://kevinthomas63.wordpress.com/...rage-expanded/
https://www.lawyersandsettlements.co...s-adverse.html
I started slightly skeptical, because I was an assistant in many Electronic papers where real risks were disguised, problems ignored or skirted around, lies told and so forth. My name was on none of them (I was 'only' a technician at the time) but in one case I flat out contradicted a professor, and won the whole department around to my side inside a few months, as his product bombed exactly where I predicted.
So reading the link above along with other info
- A paper entitled "Why most publish research is false,"
- pub peer
- Retraction Watch
- The discovery that randomly generated papers had passed peer review.
- The horrible history of drugs released on an unsuspecting public by rather ruthless drugs companies
The medical practices of the FDA are noteworthy. A manufacturer has to produce two favourable papers. Said manufacturer may plough under or shred any number of negative reviews, which happens. The FDA don't want to see all the research, just the positive papers. The work of doing the "research" in the form of trials is usually contracted out, and the contractor has to do the trials. If a lie is told on the 'randomly' selected line, it would be very difficult to prove. Let's illustrate a sample double blind trial of 100, with half given the drug. So your sample size per trial is 50.
The drug's efficiency is just over 20%, but there are side effects in many. So 11/50 improve. But if you do 5 such trials, then 55 people will improve. Now two "random" trials can be organised, one with 27/50 & the other with 28/50 improving. Severe effects can be listed an minor, and you're good to go with FDA approval. Sales talk will say 'No known side effects.'
And even with a class action lawsuit, the drug company can recover the costs by price increases. All these cures for osteoporosis prescribed have lost class actions costing them $10 - $15 millions in the States alone. The reason is simple: the bones naturally destroy old bone, and build new bone in accord with your exercise pattern. So Space Shuttle astronauts in weightlessness all take a big calcium hit. These osteoporosis drugs can only redistribute existing (and insufficient) existing calcium in bones. There are class actions against them
https://kevinthomas63.wordpress.com/...rage-expanded/
https://www.lawyersandsettlements.co...s-adverse.html