Medical Studies are almost always bogus

One man’s opinion who has not much to say about prospective clinical trials.

 

We must remember that “Associated with and Caused by” are even in the same ballpark.

How many physicians for the nominal amount they are payed to conduct trials would knowingly risk their reputation or have their license to practice medicine revoked?

 

When multiple clinical trials, i.e. those studies pharmaceuticals in humans which have already been on the market.

Here we have a situation where one or more trials are conducted, published in peer review journals with the results sent to the FDA for a possible new indication, (use)

If the FDA approves said trials, they provide the manufacturer of the agent to include it writhing the package insert, the physician’s small piece of paper used to describe result and or additional side effects.

Those who are into homeopathy, using vitamin and mineral supplements, may be unaware that any product sold over the counter is not required to show effectiveness, only that it won’t harm patients.

Is that science?  Hardly!

 

For life-saving or extending trials, the studies are more rigorous in study design.

They are designated Phase I:  to determine the maximum tolerated dose in humans.

Phase II, to determine if let’s say an agent to treat cancer has seemed to show effectiveness in one or two patients, then the drug candidate is scheduled for phase III trials where the agents usually tested in combination to see if a significant difference in effectiveness can be shown between the combinations.

If effective then on to Phase IV where the combination with the best results usually has a shot at replacing the treatment of the day.

 

As a personal aside, I spent 25 years conducting clinical trials in patients with cancer.

Was I successful?

Two of my drug candidates were approved in that 25 year period.

What’s your opinion, please leave it in the comments section below.

Those who are fixated on the results of unpublished trials, specifically in the cancer area do not mention that  patients drop out of the studies during different phases of clinical trials.

It may come as a big shock, but actually, there are more drug candidates that patients with cancer.

Patients must qualify for clinical trials and far too many of them don’t.

They must be of a certain performance status, (measure of well-being) weight or stage of the disease.

If a trial is closed, the candidate is dead, won’t come to the market, unless perhaps for a completely different us, and then the process starts all over again.

 

 

How many times have you encountered a study — on, say, weight loss — that trumpeted one fad, only to see another study discrediting it a week later?

That’s because many medical studies are junk. It’s an open secret in the research community, and it even has a name: “the reproducitbility crisis.”

It’s an open secret in the research community, and it even has a name: “the reproducibility crisis.”

For any study to have legitimacy, it must be replicated, yet only half of medical studies celebrated in newspapers hold water under serious follow-up scrutiny, and about two-thirds of the “sexist” cutting-edge reports, including the discovery of new genes. linked to obesity or mental illness, are later “disconfirmed.”

That’s because many medical studies are junk. It’s an open secret in the research community, and it even has a name: “the reproducibility crisis.”

It’s an open secret in the research community, and it even has a name: “the reproducibility crisis.”

Though erring is a key part of the scientific process, this level of failure slows scientific progress, wastes time and resources and costs taxpayers excesses of $28 billion a year, writes NPR science correspondent Richard Harris in his book

 

Rigor Mortis: How Sloppy Science Creates Worthless Cures, Crushes Hope, and Wastes Billions (Basic Books).

“When you read something, take it with a grain of salt,” Harris tells The Post. “Even the best science can be misleading, and often what you’re reading is not the best science.”

Take one particularly enraging example: For many years research on breast cancer was conducted on misidentified melanoma cells, which means that thousands of papers published in credible scientific journals were actually studying the wrong cancer.

“It’s impossible to know how much this sloppy use of the wrong cells has set back research into breast cancer,” writes Harris.

Another study claimed to have invented a blood test that could detect ovarian cancer, which would mean much earlier diagnosis.

The research was hailed as a major breakthrough on morning shows and in newspapers.

Further scrutiny, though, revealed the only reason the blood test “worked” was because the researchers tested the two batches on two separate days, all the women with ovarian cancer on one day, and without the disease the next.

Instead of measuring the differences in the cancer, the blood test had, in fact, measured the day-to-day differences in the machine.

The research was hailed as a major breakthrough on morning shows and in newspapers.

So why are so many tests bogus? Harris has some thoughts.

For one, science is hard.

Everything from unconscious bias, the way researchers see their data through the rosy lens of their own theses, to the types of beaker they use or the bedding that they keep mice in can cloud results and derail reproducibility.

(BIAS IS EASILY DEALT WITH IN CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS)

Then there is the funding issue.

During the heyday of the late ’90s and early aughts, research funding increased until Congress decided to hold funding flat for the next decade, creating an atmosphere of intense, some would say unhealthy, competition among research scientists.

Now only 17 percent of grants get funded (compared to a third three decades ago).

Add this to the truly terrible job market for post-docs, only 21 percent land tenure track jobs, and there is a greater incentive to publish splashy counter-intuitive studies, which have a higher likelihood of being wrong, writes Harris.

One effect of this “pressure to publish” situation is intentional data manipulation, where scientists cherry-pick the information that supports a hypothesis while ignoring the data that doesn’t — an all too common problem in academic research, writes Harris.

“There’s a constant scramble for research dollars.

Promotions and tenure depend on making splashy discoveries. There are big rewards for being first, even if the work ultimately fails the test of time,” writes Harris.

This will only get worse if funding is cut further — something that seems inevitable under proposed federal tax cuts.

“It only exacerbates the problems.

With so many scientists fighting for a shrinking pool of money, cuts will only make all of these issues worse,” Harris says.

Luckily, there is a growing group of people working to expose the ugly side of how research is done.

One of them is Stanford professor John Ioannidis, considered one of the heroes of the reproducibility movement.

He’s written extensively on the topic, including a scathing paper titled “Why Most Published Scientific Research Findings Are False.”

He’s found, for example, out of tens of thousands of papers touting discoveries of specific genes linked to everything from depression to obesity, only 1.2 percent had truly positive results. (Again, linked to does not mean causes.)

Meanwhile, Dr. Ioannidis followed 49 studies that had been cited at least a thousand times, of which seven had been “flatly contradicted” by further research.

This included one that claimed estrogen and progestin benefited women after hysterectomies “when in fact the drug combination increased the risk of heart disease and breast cancer.” (A bogus study design)

Now according to the National Institute of Health, the combination is once again used widely by physicians.

It was called the Prem-Pro study designed by the government so they would not be required to prescribe Provera.

Other organizations like Retraction Watch, which tracks discredited studies in real time, and the Cochrane group, an independent network of researchers that pushes for evidence-based medicine, act as industry watchdogs.

There is also an internal push for scientists to make their data public so it’s easier to police bad science.

The public can play a role, too. “If we curb our enthusiasm a bit,” Harris writes, “scientists will be less likely to run headlong after dubious ideas.”

 

THE END

Advertisements

About JCscuba

I am firmly devoted to bringing you the truth and the stories that the mainstream media ignores. Together we can restore our constitutional republic to what the founding fathers envisioned and fight back against the progressive movement. Obama nearly destroyed our country economically, militarily coupled with his racism he set us further on the march to becoming a Socialist State. Now it's up to President Trump to restore America to prominence. Republicans who refuse to go along with most of his agenda RINOs must be forced to walk the plank, they are RINOs and little else.
This entry was posted in Medical Studies are almost always bogus and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Medical Studies are almost always bogus

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s