[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, sparaig LEnglish5@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: snip Another thing that annoys me as the amount journals charge to read papers, all you can access is the abstract and you can pay $20 for a read of the data. Should all be free to make it easier to research things. I agree. One could almost get the impression that the researchers don't WANT people to view their actual data and look into the details of their methodology, eh? One could, if one weren't aware of the fact that one factor in a researcher's prestige is the number of times his or her papers get cited in other researchers' papers. the NIH requires all papers that were published using NIH grants to be available for free online. The Brits are going one step further and requiring ALL research (I think) to be be available free online. http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2012/7/16/british-research-goes-open-source.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: For those who got the gist of the post I made the other day about the POM Wonderful lawsuit and what it implied about the state of science (most drug studies being paid for by the people who will profit from positive results being reported by the researchers), here are a few links to show that I was far from alone in being concerned. Interesting and very disturbing. Nothing wrong with scientific method just too much money at stake I suppose, real shame drug companies have to resort to this sort of thing but drugs are getting harder to develop because the easy work has been done I guess and it's very expensive to test something. This isn't an excuse there has to be some sort of restructuring of funding and laws about publication of evidence. I remember the first time this came to my attention with Prozac, they launched a major PR exercise and got some shrink to lie about how good it was and could transform your life even if you weren't suffering from depression! People took to it and swallowed the stuff like MMs. I was shocked when the truth came out, maybe I shouldn't have been but you hope the hypocratic oath stands for something, and even later they find it's no better than a placebo. Another thing that annoys me as the amount journals charge to read papers, all you can access is the abstract and you can pay $20 for a read of the data. Should all be free to make it easier to research things. . Just How Scientific is Science-Based Medicine Really? Nearly 90 Percent of Cancer Studies Cannot be Replicated http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-compa\ nies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-comp\ anies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx The mainly unreported large number of retractions in scientific studies http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/is-misconduct-more-likel\ y-in-drug-trials-than-in-other-biomedical-research/ http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/is-misconduct-more-like\ ly-in-drug-trials-than-in-other-biomedical-research/ Precious research money is wasted on unreal results, but we can change the culture of science. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprod\ ucing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprodu\ cing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprod\ ucing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html Most People Who Take Blood Pressure Medication Possibly Shouldn't An independent analysis finds no real benefit for people with mild hypertension. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\ t_attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\ t_attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html%20 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/0\ 8/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_heart\ _attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\ t_attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: For those who got the gist of the post I made the other day about the POM Wonderful lawsuit and what it implied about the state of science (most drug studies being paid for by the people who will profit from positive results being reported by the researchers), here are a few links to show that I was far from alone in being concerned. Interesting and very disturbing. Nothing wrong with scientific method just too much money at stake I suppose, real shame drug companies have to resort to this sort of thing but drugs are getting harder to develop because the easy work has been done I guess and it's very expensive to test something. This isn't an excuse there has to be some sort of restructuring of funding and laws about publication of evidence. I remember the first time this came to my attention with Prozac, they launched a major PR exercise and got some shrink to lie about how good it was and could transform your life even if you weren't suffering from depression! People took to it and swallowed the stuff like MMs. I was shocked when the truth came out, maybe I shouldn't have been but you hope the hypocratic oath stands for something, and even later they find it's no better than a placebo. Another thing that annoys me as the amount journals charge to read papers, all you can access is the abstract and you can pay $20 for a read of the data. Should all be free to make it easier to research things. . Just How Scientific is Science-Based Medicine Really? Nearly 90 Percent of Cancer Studies Cannot be Replicated http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-compa\ nies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-comp\ anies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx The mainly unreported large number of retractions in scientific studies http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/is-misconduct-more-likel\ y-in-drug-trials-than-in-other-biomedical-research/ http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/is-misconduct-more-like\ ly-in-drug-trials-than-in-other-biomedical-research/ Precious research money is wasted on unreal results, but we can change the culture of science. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprod\ ucing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprodu\ cing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprod\ ucing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html Most People Who Take Blood Pressure Medication Possibly Shouldn't An independent analysis finds no real benefit for people with mild hypertension. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\ t_attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\ t_attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html%20 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/0\ 8/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_heart\ _attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\ t_attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html
[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: For those who got the gist of the post I made the other day about the POM Wonderful lawsuit and what it implied about the state of science (most drug studies being paid for by the people who will profit from positive results being reported by the researchers), here are a few links to show that I was far from alone in being concerned. Interesting and very disturbing. Nothing wrong with scientific method just too much money at stake I suppose, real shame drug companies have to resort to this sort of thing but drugs are getting harder to develop because the easy work has been done I guess and it's very expensive to test something. This isn't an excuse there has to be some sort of restructuring of funding and laws about publication of evidence. The problem, as I see it, is the state of modern science has little to do with the basic principle of science -- the replication of results. And it's all about money. Drug companies invest millions in some new drug and then need to have it tested to get it approved for sale by the FDA and other governmental agencies around the world. So they fund the studies, which *may or may not* influence the results of the studies. The only way to tell whether the preliminary studies paid for by the drug companies are accurate or not is to *replicate the studies*, and try to reproduce the results. That is the *only* way that scientific evidence can be considered to be real evidence. But the problem is, *Who pays for the followup studies*? No real governmental or private agencies are in charge of funding and supporting replication studies. I remember the first time this came to my attention with Prozac, they launched a major PR exercise and got some shrink to lie about how good it was and could transform your life even if you weren't suffering from depression! People took to it and swallowed the stuff like MMs. I was shocked when the truth came out, maybe I shouldn't have been but you hope the hypocratic oath stands for something, and even later they find it's no better than a placebo. Another thing that annoys me as the amount journals charge to read papers, all you can access is the abstract and you can pay $20 for a read of the data. Should all be free to make it easier to research things. I agree. One could almost get the impression that the researchers don't WANT people to view their actual data and look into the details of their methodology, eh? Just How Scientific is Science-Based Medicine Really? Nearly 90 Percent of Cancer Studies Cannot be Replicated http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-compa\ nies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-comp\ anies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx The mainly unreported large number of retractions in scientific studies http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529181145.htm http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/is-misconduct-more-likel\ y-in-drug-trials-than-in-other-biomedical-research/ http://retractionwatch.wordpress.com/2012/05/17/is-misconduct-more-like\ ly-in-drug-trials-than-in-other-biomedical-research/ Precious research money is wasted on unreal results, but we can change the culture of science. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprod\ ucing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprodu\ cing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/reprod\ ucing_scientific_studies_a_good_housekeeping_seal_of_approval_.html Most People Who Take Blood Pressure Medication Possibly Shouldn't An independent analysis finds no real benefit for people with mild hypertension. http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\ t_attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\ t_attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html%20 http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/0\ 8/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_heart\ _attacks_strokes_or_early_death.html http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/\ 08/blood_pressure_drugs_for_mild_hypertension_not_proven_to_prevent_hear\
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
On 08/15/2012 02:39 AM, turquoiseb wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: For those who got the gist of the post I made the other day about the POM Wonderful lawsuit and what it implied about the state of science (most drug studies being paid for by the people who will profit from positive results being reported by the researchers), here are a few links to show that I was far from alone in being concerned. Interesting and very disturbing. Nothing wrong with scientific method just too much money at stake I suppose, real shame drug companies have to resort to this sort of thing but drugs are getting harder to develop because the easy work has been done I guess and it's very expensive to test something. This isn't an excuse there has to be some sort of restructuring of funding and laws about publication of evidence. The problem, as I see it, is the state of modern science has little to do with the basic principle of science -- the replication of results. And it's all about money. Drug companies invest millions in some new drug and then need to have it tested to get it approved for sale by the FDA and other governmental agencies around the world. So they fund the studies, which *may or may not* influence the results of the studies. The only way to tell whether the preliminary studies paid for by the drug companies are accurate or not is to *replicate the studies*, and try to reproduce the results. That is the *only* way that scientific evidence can be considered to be real evidence. But the problem is, *Who pays for the followup studies*? No real governmental or private agencies are in charge of funding and supporting replication studies. The problem is for profit medicine. These companies have to invent new drugs just to keep the cash flow going. It has little or nothing to do with solving health problems just their economic health problems. IOW, science is getting gamed for the profits of these companies. Human health is pretty much dependent on biochemistry. There are a lot of problems that can be solved with traditional and ancient medicine all which falls in line with biochemistry. But there are no big profits in that for the boys in the Armani suits. As we don't want to be living in the Orwellian 1984 world neither should we be living in the Huxley Brave New World.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: snip Another thing that annoys me as the amount journals charge to read papers, all you can access is the abstract and you can pay $20 for a read of the data. Should all be free to make it easier to research things. I agree. One could almost get the impression that the researchers don't WANT people to view their actual data and look into the details of their methodology, eh? One could, if one weren't aware of the fact that one factor in a researcher's prestige is the number of times his or her papers get cited in other researchers' papers.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: For those who got the gist of the post I made the other day about the POM Wonderful lawsuit and what it implied about the state of science (most drug studies being paid for by the people who will profit from positive results being reported by the researchers), here are a few links to show that I was far from alone in being concerned. I doubt anybody thought you were alone in being concerned, Barry. It's a pretty well-known problem. What was so amusing about your post was that it came from a Web site with a serious financial interest in promoting distrust of the drug companies--and you never noticed that it had the same problem of bias it was inveighing against, only in reverse. The site is in the business of selling natural remedies and health guides. Or maybe you did notice, and that was why you didn't provide a link to the article. You most definitely mischaracterized the paragraph you snipped, too. If anybody missed it, here's my post quoting Barry's mischaracterization *and* the part he snipped. It's pretty revealing: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/316810 It's no wonder you didn't want readers to look at the original article. The articles you cited in this post are likely to be more reliable--except the one from Mercola's site: Just How Scientific is Science-Based Medicine Really? Nearly 90 Percent of Cancer Studies Cannot be Replicated http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-companies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx Mercola happens to be a borderline quack. One should have a salt shaker handy when reading anything on his site and do a lot of checking with more reliable sources. (He's an anti-vaxer, just for one appalling thing.)
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
Oh no Judy, I really like Dr. Mercola. Why do you think it's bad to be against vaccines? From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:53 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@... wrote: For those who got the gist of the post I made the other day about the POM Wonderful lawsuit and what it implied about the state of science (most drug studies being paid for by the people who will profit from positive results being reported by the researchers), here are a few links to show that I was far from alone in being concerned. I doubt anybody thought you were alone in being concerned, Barry. It's a pretty well-known problem. What was so amusing about your post was that it came from a Web site with a serious financial interest in promoting distrust of the drug companies--and you never noticed that it had the same problem of bias it was inveighing against, only in reverse. The site is in the business of selling natural remedies and health guides. Or maybe you did notice, and that was why you didn't provide a link to the article. You most definitely mischaracterized the paragraph you snipped, too. If anybody missed it, here's my post quoting Barry's mischaracterization *and* the part he snipped. It's pretty revealing: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/316810 It's no wonder you didn't want readers to look at the original article. The articles you cited in this post are likely to be more reliable--except the one from Mercola's site: Just How Scientific is Science-Based Medicine Really? Nearly 90 Percent of Cancer Studies Cannot be Replicated http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2012/07/12/drug-companies-on-scientific-fraud.aspx Mercola happens to be a borderline quack. One should have a salt shaker handy when reading anything on his site and do a lot of checking with more reliable sources. (He's an anti-vaxer, just for one appalling thing.)
[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Oh no Judy, I really like Dr. Mercola. Why do you think it's bad to be against vaccines? OMIGOD. Share, being against vaccines is one of the very most dangerous of the unfounded myths circulating among alternative-health folks. There are huge amounts of excellent material on the Web debunking opposition to vaccines. That isn't to say that there is no risk to vaccines, just that the risks of not using them are far greater. Do you know what herd immunity means? Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity This is a good place to start. You really need to inform yourself of all the pros and cons instead of just swallowing what Mercola has to say.
[FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, authfriend jstein@... wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, turquoiseb no_reply@ wrote: --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, salyavin808 fintlewoodlewix@ wrote: snip Another thing that annoys me as the amount journals charge to read papers, all you can access is the abstract and you can pay $20 for a read of the data. Should all be free to make it easier to research things. I agree. One could almost get the impression that the researchers don't WANT people to view their actual data and look into the details of their methodology, eh? One could, if one weren't aware of the fact that one factor in a researcher's prestige is the number of times his or her papers get cited in other researchers' papers. the NIH requires all papers that were published using NIH grants to be available for free online. The Brits are going one step further and requiring ALL research (I think) to be be available free online. If you are interested in a specific paper, it is usual cool to email the author(s) and ask for a copy. They usually have a scanned copy sitting on their desktop computer. Some people have entire semi-private websites that are nothing but scanned papers and books -their own, and/or their friends', and will give you the URL to a specific paper so you can read it online/download it. Many of them aren't really good at more subtle internet trivia and leave their webpages open to google searches and if you know what you are doing, you can find some really neat stuff (e.g. I just found a site with about 500 high-level math books that can be downloaded -guess what I did today...) L.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
Thanks, Judy, yes this is why I asked. I wanted your input on the topic in addition to what I knew from Mercola. I didn't know about herd immunity. Good to know. I guess I swallowed what Mercola said because no one else was talking. What about vaccines and autism? From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Oh no Judy, I really like Dr. Mercola. Why do you think it's bad to be against vaccines? OMIGOD. Share, being against vaccines is one of the very most dangerous of the unfounded myths circulating among alternative-health folks. There are huge amounts of excellent material on the Web debunking opposition to vaccines. That isn't to say that there is no risk to vaccines, just that the risks of not using them are far greater. Do you know what herd immunity means? Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity This is a good place to start. You really need to inform yourself of all the pros and cons instead of just swallowing what Mercola has to say.
Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science
Hi Share: Here is a link to a discussion on Mercola's claims re: vaccinations. Number 6 provides this author's opinion on the link between autism and vaccines. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/9-reasons-to-completely-ignore-joseph-mercola-and-natural-news/ From: Share Long sharelon...@yahoo.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 7:36 PM Subject: Re: [FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science Thanks, Judy, yes this is why I asked. I wanted your input on the topic in addition to what I knew from Mercola. I didn't know about herd immunity. Good to know. I guess I swallowed what Mercola said because no one else was talking. What about vaccines and autism? From: authfriend jst...@panix.com To: FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 8:23 PM Subject: [FairfieldLife] Re: Followup articles on the sorry state of science --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Share Long sharelong60@... wrote: Oh no Judy, I really like Dr. Mercola. Why do you think it's bad to be against vaccines? OMIGOD. Share, being against vaccines is one of the very most dangerous of the unfounded myths circulating among alternative-health folks. There are huge amounts of excellent material on the Web debunking opposition to vaccines. That isn't to say that there is no risk to vaccines, just that the risks of not using them are far greater. Do you know what herd immunity means? Have a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity This is a good place to start. You really need to inform yourself of all the pros and cons instead of just swallowing what Mercola has to say.
