discoveries don't hold up

A place to discuss health and fitness, healthy diets, etc.

discoveries don't hold up

Postby greentara » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:03 am

" 88 percent of 53 landmark studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means the the conclusions are patently false.

C Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears that researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention rather then publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public"
Jonathan Benson, Natural News
greentara
 
Posts: 933
Joined: Tue Apr 03, 2012 4:03 am

Re: discoveries don't hold up

Postby Kim O'Hara » Thu Jul 11, 2013 6:55 am

greentara wrote:" 88 percent of 53 landmark studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means the the conclusions are patently false.

C Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears that researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention rather then publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public"
Jonathan Benson, Natural News

Hi, Greentara,
There's a logical error in the first sentence: the fact that that results could not be reproduced does not necessarily mean they are incorrect, although it does indeed cast doubt on them.
That bothered me so I searched for your source - and found it, at http://www.naturalnews.com/040230_cancer_research_false_conclusions.html.
The fact that the review was published in Nature (at http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v483/n7391/full/483531a.html) lends it more weight,
but the Natural News story is slightly more alarmist and your own post is even more negative about current cancer research.
It's also worth noting that, since Begley and Ellis did not disclose the source data of their own article (see http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v485/n7396/full/485041e.html), their critique is as non-reproducible and potentially false as the research they critique.

Take-home message: don't believe everything you read ;-)

:namaste:
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: discoveries don't hold up

Postby Simon E. » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:32 am

There is of course another glaring logical fallacy. No cure for any cancer was found by an absence of research. And cancers are increasingly curable. This has not come about by intuition or ' alternative ' medicine.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: discoveries don't hold up

Postby dzogchungpa » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:38 pm

from http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/28/us-science-cancer-idUSBRE82R12P20120328:
Other scientists worry that something less innocuous explains the lack of reproducibility.

Part way through his project to reproduce promising studies, Begley met for breakfast at a cancer conference with the lead scientist of one of the problematic studies.

"We went through the paper line by line, figure by figure," said Begley. "I explained that we re-did their experiment 50 times and never got their result. He said they'd done it six times and got this result once, but put it in the paper because it made the best story. It's very disillusioning."

Such selective publication is just one reason the scientific literature is peppered with incorrect results.

For one thing, basic science studies are rarely "blinded" the way clinical trials are. That is, researchers know which cell line or mouse got a treatment or had cancer. That can be a problem when data are subject to interpretation, as a researcher who is intellectually invested in a theory is more likely to interpret ambiguous evidence in its favor.
ཨོཾ་ཏཱ་རེ་ཏུཏྟ་རེ་ཏུ་རེ་སྭཱཧཱ༔
User avatar
dzogchungpa
 
Posts: 2295
Joined: Sat May 28, 2011 10:50 pm

Re: discoveries don't hold up

Postby Lhug-Pa » Thu Jul 11, 2013 9:39 pm

So much for the materialist fanatics of scientism's idea that "peer reviewed journals" are nearly infallible.

Like I've been saying, how many of these guys are on the corporatocracy's/big pharma's payroll i.e. they wouldn't dare go against their corporatist-thug boss's orders very much for fear of losing that paycheck signed by the international bankers and their henchmen.

The same bankers who are behind destructive and extremely toxic corporations like monsanto, dow, koch brothers, walmart, mcdonalds, coca-cola/pepsi, proctor & gamble, bayer, the military-industrial-complex, etc.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: discoveries don't hold up

Postby Lhug-Pa » Thu Jul 11, 2013 11:14 pm

By the way, I'm not saying that peer reviewed journals have no value.

What I'm saying is that here we can see that they're not as independent as is thought by a large percentage of their advocates.
User avatar
Lhug-Pa
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 15, 2011 11:58 pm

Re: discoveries don't hold up

Postby Kim O'Hara » Fri Jul 12, 2013 6:22 am

Lhug-Pa wrote:By the way, I'm not saying that peer reviewed journals have no value.

What I'm saying is that here we can see that they're not as independent as is thought by a large percentage of their advocates.

That's a much more reasonable position - thanks.
Peer review is a bit like democracy: not terrifically good but a lot better than the next best alternative.

:?
Kim
User avatar
Kim O'Hara
Global Moderator
 
Posts: 995
Joined: Fri Nov 16, 2012 1:09 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: discoveries don't hold up

Postby Simon E. » Fri Jul 12, 2013 8:13 am

Kim O'Hara wrote:
Lhug-Pa wrote:By the way, I'm not saying that peer reviewed journals have no value.

What I'm saying is that here we can see that they're not as independent as is thought by a large percentage of their advocates.

That's a much more reasonable position - thanks.
Peer review is a bit like democracy: not terrifically good but a lot better than the next best alternative.

:?
Kim

Precisely.
A flawed process carries out by fallible human beings that has resulted in significant understanding of, and sometimes cure of, a whole range of conditions which were incurable just 20 short years ago.
There are literally millions world-wide with cause to be grateful for all of the advances in the sphere of medicine, surgery, and applied psychology.
The idea of reverting to the use of responses based on medieval superstitions in the face of Hodgkins Disease, testicular cancer, smallpox, A.I.D.S, kidney failure, phobias, obsessional states, polio, malaria, yellow fever, leprosy, etc etc etc does not bear thinking about.
There is nothing 'Buddhist' in advocating a wilful turning away from significant reductions in the suffering brought about by a whole range of conditions in order to maintain an anachronistic and neophobic ideology.
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2551
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am


Return to Wellness, Diet and Fitness

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

>