Most medical research false?

Something to ponder.


(NaturalNews) For several reasons, a stigma has been placed on scientific research which has caused many people to become quite skeptical and cynical of what is being produced and published. Much of the reluctance to embrace contemporary research findings has stemmed from Ioannidis' 2005 article, "Why Most Published Research Findings are False." This article has gone viral and has been quoted by numerous websites and right-winged critics in their attempt to discredit scientific research.


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/039416_medical_research_scientific_fraud_false_data.html#ixzz2NSD3L2Iq

http://www.naturalnews.com/039416_medical_research_scientific_fraud_false_data.html

Well, I've seen a few write ups with the British Medical establishment being concerned over the quality of some studies, along with licensing. A few articles I've seen on this from Dr. Briffa's sight ~

"Medical device licensing in Europe is unbelievably shoddy and tainted by conflicts of interest"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/10/25/...-shoddy-and-tainted-by-conflicts-of-interest/

&

"Don’t believe everything you read (including in scientific journals)"

News broke last week (see here for an example) that a University of Connecticut researcher had be found to have falsified data concerning his research into the antioxidant resveratrol (found in, among other things, red wine and red grapes). This week the British Medical Journal reports on the fact that a doctor and flu vaccine researcher based at Leicester University in the UK has been suspended for a range of misdemeanours including forging colleagues signatures and recruiting himself into a study under a disguised name.

It would be comforting to think of these events as isolated incidences in the scientific community. However, according to a recent piece in the British Medical Journal, scientific misconduct is ‘worryingly prevalent’, at least in the UK [1].

The BMJ sent out a questionnaire to more than 9,000 researchers and reviewers asking if they has knowledge of colleagues “inappropriately adjusting, excluding, altering, or fabricating data” for the purpose of publication. Of those who responded, 13 per cent admitted they had such knowledge. 6 per cent admitted they were aware of misconduct within their own institutions which remained insufficiently investigated.

On January 12, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) held a summit to address the problem of research misconduct in the UK. Referring to the BMJ survey, the Chair of COPE Dr Elizabeth Wagner is quoted as saying “This survey chimes with our experience from COPE where we see many cases of institutions not cooperating with journals and failing to investigate research misconduct properly.”...

Click to expand...

The rest can be seen at:

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/01/17/...ng-you-read-including-in-scientific-journals/

&

"British Medical Journal seeks to re-evaluate medical ‘evidence’"

http://www.drbriffa.com/2011/04/29/british-medical-journal-seeks-to-re-evaluate-medical-evidence/

"the article has gone viral", therefore, its true??? ha

no, most research probably isnt false, so many people involved, the system isnt that highly corruptable, many many honest people working in science and medicine, and well a few, very few, con artists perhaps.

it just seem impossible to currupt thousands upon thousands of people at once, but i will look at the "article" anyways.



here is the actual paper they are talking about-http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=182478



ok they mention a few cases of drug companies skewing some data, thats not new information, and doesnt mean the entire medical system/or university levels research and all research is false, they are talking specifically about certain pharm companies.

Good to know.

I completely disagree with the statement that MOST scientific research is false. I certainly don't believe that is something that has been PROVEN as an absolute fact. Maybe there are some, and I do believe that there are "conflicts of interest", which MIGHT, and probably have, skewed some studies and even misrepresented certain results.

But I only believe about 1/2 of what I read anyway, and "conflicts of interest" go both ways. So I am also just as skeptical of articles criticizing medical research, published by a "Natural News" website that not only promotes, but also sells natural remedies. The inherent bias seems obvious, at least to me.

I have become even more skeptical of so-called journalists, disguising articles as facts, when in reality, what they are publishing consists primarily of their own personal, highly sensationalized, and extremely biased opinions, which have very little factual basis, if any.

Yeah, I agree Ya Noy, I take everything I read with a grain of salt. One thing I have learned since being sick for the last 9 years with so much stuff is that everyone who has a disease, it is going to effect each person differently,and may even have a different cause.

I also believe that there are several different things than can cause intestinal inflammation. Could be a bacteria for one person and could be a virus for another but these people may all still be diagnosed with having some sort of IBD. Like for instance I was diagnosed with IC( interstitial cystitis) of the bladder back in 2006. I went to several specialists trying to get help and pain relief to No avail. They could not tell me what causes IC, but they told me they were sure it was not a bacteria. Well I suffered for three years in agony, literally praying to die because of the pain. I mean imagine your bladder feeling like it had a third degree burn in it and then pour some acid on top. That is what my bladder felt like. It was awful. Well then all the bladder infections started( or should I say, they started being seen on some of my urine cultures). I finally had one doctor who I seen in a walk in urgent care no less and she knew more about IC than the uro I was seeing!!! She said that I had to be on an antibiotic for at least 6 weeks or longer and then had to be on one low dose from then on. Well after being on the medication two weeks low and behold I felt SOOO much better, better than I had felt in the three years since getting the IC at that point. I was concinved that my IC was caused by a bacteria from that point on. Even my regular doctor said she thinks it is some sort of bacteria that is hidden( biofilm) than it cannot be picked up on our primitive routine cultures all the time. I have since also met different IC sufferers who also have responded to antibitoic therapy. But yet some women who did the antibitoic therapy, it did not work at all, in fact some got worse on it. So ya see, even though some researcher said that IC is NOT caused by a bacteria, well I am sorry, he is wrong in my case and in many others! But for some some women with this disease the cause may be entirely different. Some women's IC is caused by Mast cells. It is just so different for everyone...

Just like with crohns, I think everyone is different and there can be many people who have crohns and it's cause and nature in going to be very different in a lot of people. That is why some meds work for some people and for others it does not. And like I said, I also think that some people may be running around out there with a diagnosis of crohns due to inflammation in the bowel, but they may have something entirely different. There are so many things that can make us sick. They just dont know, doctors and even the best researchers just do not have the knowledge. The body is just too complex.....

So when I read research papers, I think it is great, I mean I am always up for learning and reading new ideas and opinions, but that is all it is and nothing is written in stone when it comes to ANY chronic illness.....