Trust “The Science”, they said.
“Authors of a landmark Alzheimer’s disease research paper published in Nature in 2006 have agreed to retract the study in response to allegations of image manipulation.”
“University of Minnesota (UMN) Twin Cities neuroscientist Karen Ashe, the paper’s senior author, acknowledged in a post on the journal discussion site PubPeer that the paper contains doctored images. The study has been cited nearly 2500 times, and would be the most cited paper ever to be retracted, according to Retraction Watch data.”
Killer Marmot, where art thou? You always fall back on cited studies, yet the average Joe Schmo knows instinctively that science has been corrupted by money just like everything else even tangentially touching government (grantors). Climategate was our wakeup, when will yours be?
Bingo
I never claimed that all scientific papers were God’s truth. Scientific enterprizes are run by people, not infallible super beings. This is why any one paper should never be relied on too much. Always look for multiple studies from multiple sources. Repeatability and the preponderance of evidence should be our guide.
I do claim that modern science, despite its flaws, is by far the best way for ascertaining the truth. The fact that retractions occur means that most scientific journals take responsibility for their content when that content shows signs of dishonesty. It certainly beats what is often displayed in the comment section of this site by a country mile, which is often anecdotal or just outright wrong, and which is never retracted.
So far as whether science has been corrupted by money, there’s some of that, but it’s vastly overstated by those who don’t like what the science has to say. Most scientists have a profound respect for objective truth. Perhaps more to the point, scientific reputations are built on discoveries that stand the test of time, and are not later overturned. I also notice that the same people who claim science is corrupted will eagerly support a result when they like its message. Somehow their cynicism evaporates.
Peer reviewed science is shaky.
“One 2015 attempt to reproduce 100 psychology studies was able to replicate only 39 of them. A big international effort in 2018 to reproduce prominent studies found that 14 of the 28 replicated, and an attempt to replicate studies from top journals Nature and Science found that 13 of the 21 results looked at could be reproduced.”
Yes, we all suffer from conformation bias.
Most people don’t understand what peer review is or what it’s capable of.
What peer reviewers can do is to ensure the topic is worth publishing, that the paper well structured and written, that relevant previous work has been cited and discussed, that those purportedly novel aspects of the paper are truly novel, that there no obvious errors in logic or mathematics, that the conclusions follow from the results, that the limitations of the study are acknowledged, and so on.
What peer reviewers can not guarantee is that the paper is actually right, as they do not have the resources to repeat the study on their own. If the data acquistion was dishonest or sloppy, for example, there’s rarely any way to detect that unless the results are patently absurd.
The Reproducibility Project which you quoted is interesting mostly in that it shows how critical reproducibility is. The trouble is that it’s hard to get funding for a study that simply wants to repeat the results of another. It’s not cutting edge. Fortunately in COVID research, many studies were done simultaneously on the same basic topic, allowing us to compare the consistency of results.
Nice theory you have there. I know it’s a comfort to you, but for all its purported virtues, peer review is not all its cracked up to be. The much maligned, but brilliant, late Fred Singer, wrote about this 30 years ago. Its biggest flaw is it’s tendency to keep science within the fences. In other words, it discourages original thought.
For what it’s worth, some researchers consider Alzheimer’s disease to be type 3 diabetes, which even after onset can be slowed and almost reversed through diet. That won’t fly, because there isn’t any money in that theory
There has to be some process to decide which papers a journal publishes. In the old days it was usually a single editor making all the decisions. Today it’s the peer review process, which is far fairer, as numerous views are taken into consideration. And now most peer review is double blind, so that the reviewers don’t know who the authors are and vice versa.
Further, in the journal I edit for, rejection requires the approval of three levels of editors so that no paper is dismissed unfairly. I assume most other journals are similar.
So if you’re going to accuse the peer review process of gatekeeping, you should describe a process which avoids that but still manages to filter out papers that are too poor to be published. Some decision mechanism will always be needed.
Fair enough, KM, but you only ever take one side in the big Pharma issues, which are legion. Pharma spends more money lobbying Congress than all other industries combined. That is not, by its very nature good for science or patients. i usually spend little time on scientific literature, other than climate because it happens to be an interest, and my education and experience mean I can pass qualified judgement. Pharma? Not a bit, other than the statistics, those I can.
What led me was the obvious propaganda (nudge) programs being employed everywhere all at once. That isn’t needed if the solution is good. All great human tragedies in history have explicit or implicit state actors, so I trust them least. That and anything they touch is poorly done, massively expensive, and usually late.
Have you ever said anything good about Big Pharma, or am I the only one expected to recognize boths sides of an issue?
These companies produce many wonder drugs that benefit us hugely. And yes those drugs are expensive, but the companies spend many tens of billions of dollars on research without any guarantee that any one project will pay off. Further, if a drug really goes south, they are vulnerable to massive lawsuits that have the potential to destroy the entire company. And typically they have only about 10 years from government approval to recoup their expensives and make a profit. After that, the patent lapses and the generic drug companies move in on the more popular drugs.
And are pharmaceutical companies that profitable? Well if you had bought Pfizer stock 25 years ago, your capital gains would be zero.
So far as downsides, I agree. They are plenty. But taking insults from many commenters here doesn’t usually leave me in the best mood to find common ground.
I don’t know why I do this, but here I go.
The typical pharmaceutical patent in the USA runs for 20 years and not 10 yea
The share price of Pfizer on June 7, 2020 (sorry I couldn’t go back 25 years) was $23.71. Today it closed at $28.58, which means that it exactly kept even with inflation. Not great, but don’t look at their record profits or record fines. They are not altruistic, benevolent, or even fair.
None of them are. Just look at how the Sackler family is doing everything in its power to shield its wealth, despite losing a court case that showed they knew their product Vioxx was causing excess heart attacks, yet continued to promote it. though the drug was purported to help with arthritis pain. Well the dead ones are no longer feeling the pain.
I used to be where you probably are, feeling that large corporations were largely doing good work. They are not.
“The typical pharmaceutical patent in the USA runs for 20 years and not 10 years”
Theoretically yes. In practice the clock starts ticking the moment the patent is filed. It can take a couple of years for patent approval — sometimes more. Government approval takes even longer. In the U.S. this means the FDA, which requires that the pharmaceutical company carry out suites of tests. The full process can easily take up 10 years of the patent lifespan before the drug is ready for market.
“They are not altruistic, benevolent, or even fair.”
A strange forum for insisting companies be altruistic. This isn’t exactly the Worker’s Daily. But companies don’t need to be altruistic to benefit society, as Adam Smith pointed out two and half centuries ago.
I am not suggesting companies are or should be altruistic,. But the general public seems to believe that medicine, pharma, and food producers are all run by kindly, well intentioned people. They are run by the same sort of people that run everything else. No better and no worse. Well, medicine, pharma and government may be worse.
“The scientists forgot they doctored the image on the Alzheimer’s paper.”
ROTFL
“I’m a doctor. Doctored Image they call me. Just don’t call me Surely.”
So, how big was the rat willy this time?
Remember, when they say “trust the science”, what they really mean is “trust the scientists” – and what THAT really means is “trust the people writing the scientist’s checks”.
Au contraire … when “the science” tells you that a boy can “become” a girl, and vice versa … then ANYTHING is “science” and must be believed. You must even believe that Dr. Fauxci … IS … science and anything that spittles out of his mouth MUST be BELIEVED. Remember Bible inerrancy? Well now the Authoritarian Left has claimed that inerrancy as their own.
What “science” is that? My main bone to pick with transgender activists is that they run completely counter to science. The vast majority of biologists will tell you that humans are sexually dimorphic, that our sex is determined upon conception, and that we cannot change sex.
Hahahaha … just ask Mr. Science, Dr. Fauxci “what is a woman?” … and you’ll find out just how sciency transgenderism truly is …
And when Fauxci insists that the “science” of “what is a woman” is … complicated … then you will know just what the single most powerful (and highest paid) scientist/Doctor in America thinks of your “simplistic” binary
So you’re basing your conclusions about science on a single government administrator.
Garbage is still garbage,
No. I am basing my commentary on the basis that the ONE self-proclaimed Mr. Science government administrator had the power and used his power to completely shut down our economy, socially distance people, mandate masking, shutdown schools, and cost America at least $35 T in debt that will never be paid.
All based on his claim of following the science.
And every government official in every Blue State is using their perception and definition of “science” to push transgenderism. They insist that if you “identify” as an alternate sex, or God knows what … then you ARE that thing. And they’re calling it “science”.
I’ll gladly base my conclusions about science on a single government administrator, if he’s administering the bucks my way. That’s clearly how the experts do it.
Dale Bredesen MD is an Alzheimer’s researcher who has been criticizing the amyloid plaque idea for years. His theory is that the plaques are a defence mechanism of the brain, which traps pathogens or toxins inside the plaques. Therefore, drugs that break down the plaques may actually release the pathogens and make things worse.
A search on his name will find books and videos explaining his ideas and therapies.
The author of the Midwestern Doctor substack thinks highly of Bredesen.
Criminal charges for fraud should be laid against “scientists” who pocket millions of our dollars and publish lies in order to pocket more money for more lies.