Thursday, September 22, 2016

Science Fraud

Bad science misled millions with chronic fatigue syndrome. Here’s how we fought back

"After reviewing the new analysis, Jonathan Edwards, a professor emeritus of medicine at University College London said he was unconvinced that these small subjective improvements indicated the patients genuinely felt better. “They’ve set this trial up to give the strongest possible chance of there being a placebo effect that you can imagine,” he said.

“This is a classic bad study,” said Ron Davis, director of the Stanford Genome Technology Center and director of the Science Advisory Board of the End ME/CFS Project. He emphasized an additional problem: The study used such a broad definition of the disease that it likely included many patients who didn’t truly have ME/CFS at all.

“The study needs to be retracted,” Davis said. “I would like to use it as a teaching tool, to have medical students read it and ask them, ‘How many things can you find wrong with this study?’”
Bad Science. BAAAD science!

When data is secret, controlled, or manipulated, or doesn't exist, ignore the claims altogether. It absolutely doesn't matter how much money is involved, how many experts buy into it, or whether it was peer reviewed and published. What matters is the data/process and replication for falsification.

Japan is investigating massive fraud claims in several teams of university research.

No comments: