You guys need to get it through youer thick heads that, just because you buy something with LV or rayban or 'peer reviewed double blind trial' wrtitten on it doesn't mean it's legit. Frauds gonna fraud. Liars gonna lie. There's a film about fraud & big tobacco you should probably watch. As to the Medical Industrial Complex, there have been a number of cases where studies published in peer-reviewed journals - including those using double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) designs - were later found to involve fraud, fabricated data, or serious misconduct. Peer review and double blinding reduce certain types of bias, but they do not guarantee that the underlying data are genuine. Here are some examples of the pEEr rEViEwEd dOubLE bLinD tRiaL frauds (tip of the iceberg): Yo<deleted>aka Fujii (Anesthesiology) Published more than 180 clinical trials, many described as randomized, double-blind studies. Investigations found extensive data fabrication and statistical impossibilities. More than 180 papers have been retracted, making it one of the largest scientific fraud cases ever. His fabricated trials influenced anesthesia and postoperative nausea treatment recommendations before being uncovered. Joachim Boldt Published numerous randomized, double-blind trials on intravenous fluids. Investigations found lack of ethics approval, questionable consent procedures, and unreliable or fabricated data. Over 90 papers have been retracted. His work affected clinical practice regarding colloid solutions. Scott Reuben Fabricated data in at least 21 published clinical trials. Many were randomized and double-blind studies evaluating pain medications such as COX-2 inhibitors. His work influenced postoperative pain management until the fraud was exposed in 2009. Andrew Wakefield Although not a randomized or double-blind trial, this case is often cited because it demonstrates that peer review alone cannot prevent publication of fraudulent or misleading research. His 1998 paper in The Lancet falsely linked the Autism diagnosis with the Measles, Mumps and Rubella vaccine. The paper was eventually fully retracted after evidence of ethical violations and data misrepresentation. Paolo Macchiarini Several clinical publications reported successful tracheal transplants. Investigations later found major discrepancies between reported outcomes and patients' actual clinical courses. While not classic double-blind RCTs, these peer-reviewed clinical studies contained serious scientific misconduct. Why peer review didn't catch thesePeer reviewers generally evaluate: whether the methods are scientifically appropriate, whether the analyses appear reasonable, whether the conclusions follow from the reported results. They usually cannot: inspect raw patient records, independently verify randomization, confirm that participants actually existed, detect sophisticated data fabrication without access to underlying data. ConclusionIn short, a study can be peer-reviewed, randomized, and double-blind, yet still be fraudulent if the underlying data are fabricated or misrepresented. TLDR: Corporations generally get the 'science' / soyence they pay for.
Create an account or sign in to comment