Skepticism about science and medicine

In search of disinterested science

Archive for the ‘fraud in medicine’ Category

Politics, science, and medicine

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/12/31

I recently posted a blog about President Trump firing members of the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS in which I concluded with
”Above all, the sad and bitter fact is that truth-seeking does not have a political constituency, be it about HIV, AIDS, or anything else”.

That sad state of affairs, the fragile foothold that demonstrable truth has in contemporary society, is owing to a number of factors, including that “Science is broken” and the effective hegemony of political correctness (Can truth prevail?).

A consequence is that public policies are misguided about at least two issues of significant social impact: HIV/AIDS (The Case against HIV), and human-caused global warming (A politically liberal global-warming skeptic?).

Science and medicine are characterized nowadays on quite a number of matters by dogmatic adherence to views that run counter to the undisputed evidence (Dogmatism in Science and Medicine: How Dominant Theories Monopolize Research and Stifle the Search for Truth, McFarland, 2012). To cite just one absurdity (on a matter that has no significant public impact): in cosmology, the prevailing Big-Bang theory of the universe requires that “dark matter” and “dark energy” make up most of the universe, the “dark” signifying that they have never been directly observed; and there are no credible suggestions for how they might be observed directly, and nothing is known about them except that their postulated influences are needed to make Big-Bang theory comport to the facts of the real world. Moreover, a less obviously flawed theory has been available for decades, the “steady-state” theory that envisages continual creation of new matter, observational evidence for which was collected and published by Halton Arp (Qasars, Redshifts and Controversies, Interstellar Media, 1987; Seeing Red: Redshifts, Cosmology and Academic Science, Apeiron, 1998).

Dozens of books have documented what is wrong with contemporary medicine, science, and academe:
Critiques of contemporary science and academe;
What’s wrong with present-day medicine.

The common feature of all the flaws is the failure to respect the purported protocols of “the scientific method”, namely, to test hypotheses against reality and to keep testing theories against reality as new evidence comes in.

Some political commentators have described our world as “post-truth”, and a variety of social commentators have held forth for decades about a “post-modern” world. But the circumstances are not so much “post-truth” or “post-modern” as pre-Enlightenment.

So far as we know and guess, humans accepted as truth the dogmatic pronouncements of elders, shamans, priests, kings, emperors and the like until, perhaps half a millennium ago, the recourse to observable evidence began to supersede acceptance of top-down dogmatic authority. Luther set in motion the process of taking seriously what the Scriptures actually say instead of accepting interpretations from on high. The religious (Christian only) Reformation was followed by the European Enlightenment; the whittling away of political power from traditional rulers; the French Revolution; the Scientific Revolution. By and large, it became accepted, gradually, that truth is to be found by empirical means, that explanations should deal with the observed natural world, that beliefs should be tested against tangible reality.

Science, in its post-17th-century manifestation as “modern science”, came to be equated with tested truth. Stunning advances in understanding confirmed science’s ability to learn accurately about the workings of nature. Phenomena of physics and of astronomy came to be understood; then chemistry; then sub-atomic structure, relativity, quantum mechanics, biochemistry … how could the power of science be disputed?

So it has been shocking, not fully digested by any means, that “science” has become untrustworthy, as shown in the last few decades by, for instance, increasing episodes of dishonesty, fraud, unreproducible claims.

Not yet widely realized is the sea change that has overtaken science since about the middle of the 20th century, the time of World War II. It’s not the scientific method that determines science, it’s the people who are doing the research and interpreting it and using it; and the human activity of doing science has changed out of sight since the early days of modern science. In a seriously oversimplified nutshell:

The circumstances of scientific activity have changed, from about pre-WWII to nowadays, from a cottage industry of voluntarily cooperating, independent, largely disinterested ivory-tower intellectual entrepreneurs in which science was free to do its own thing, namely the unfettered seeking of truth about the natural world, to a bureaucratic corporate-industry-government behemoth in which science has been pervasively co-opted by outside interests and is not free to do its own thing because of the pervasive conflicts of interest. Influences and interests outside science now control the choices of research projects and the decisions of what to publish and what not to make public.

What science is purported to say is determined by people; actions based on what science supposedly says are chosen by people; so nowadays it is political and social forces that determine beliefs about what science says. Thus politically left-leaning people and groups acknowledge no doubt that HIV causes AIDS and that human generation of carbon dioxide is the prime forcer of climate change; whereas politically right-leaning people and groups express doubts or refuse flatly to believe those things.

For more detailed discussion of how the circumstances of science have changed, see “Three stages of modern science”; “The science bubble”; and chapter 1 in Science Is Not What You Think: How It Has Changed, Why We Can’t Trust It, How It Can Be Fixed (McFarland 2017).

For how to make science a public good again, to make science truly reflect evidence rather than being determined by political or religious ideology, see chapter 12 in Science Is Not What You Think: How It Has Changed, Why We Can’t Trust It, How It Can Be Fixed (McFarland 2017).

Advertisements

Posted in conflicts of interest, fraud in medicine, fraud in science, global warming, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, scientists are human, the scientific method, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

Science is broken: Illustrations from Retraction Watch

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/12/21

I commented before about Science is broken: Perverse incentives and the misuse of quantitative metrics have undermined the integrity of scientific research.  The magazine The Scientist published on 18 December “Top 10 Retractions of 2017 —
Making the list: a journal breaks a retraction record, Nobel laureates Do the Right Thing, and Seinfeld characters write a paper”, compiled by Retraction Watch. It should be widely read and digested for an understanding of the jungle of unreliable stuff nowadays put out under the rubric of “science”.

See also “Has all academic publishing become predatory? Or just useless? Or just vanity publishing?”

 

Posted in conflicts of interest, fraud in medicine, fraud in science, media flaws, science is not truth, scientific culture, scientists are human | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Fog Facts: Side effects and re-positioning of drugs

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/11/23

Fog Facts: things that are known and yet not known —
[not known to the conventional wisdom, the general public, the media
but known to those (few) who are genuinely informed about the subject]

For that delightful term, Fog Facts, I’m grateful to Larry Beinhart who introduced me to it in his novel “The Librarian”. There it’s used in connection with political matters, but it’s entirely appropriate for the disconnect between “what everyone knows” about blood pressure, cholesterol, prescription drugs, and things of that ilk, and what the actual facts are in the technical literature.

For example, the popular shibboleth is that drug companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars in the development of a new drug, and that’s why they need to make such large profits to plough back into research. The truth of the matter is that most new drugs originate in academic research, conducted to a great extent at public expense; and drug companies spend more on advertising and marketing than they do on research. All that is known to anyone who cares to read material other than what the drug-company ads say and what the news media disseminate; and yet it’s not known because too few people read the right things, even books by former editors of medical journals and academic researchers at leading universities and published by mainstream publishers; see “What’s wrong with modern medicine”.

When it comes to drug “development”, the facts are all hidden in plain view. There’s even a whole journal about it, Nature Reviews — Drug Discovery, that began publication in 2002. I came to learn about this because Josh Nicholson had alerted me to an article in that journal, “Drug repositioning: identifying and developing new uses for existing drugs” (by Ted T. Ashburn and Karl B. Thor, 3 [2004] 673-82). I had never heard of “drug repositioning”. What could it mean?

Well, it means finding new uses for old drugs. And the basic reason for doing so is that it’s much easier and more profitable than trying to design or discover a new drug, because old drugs have already been approved as safe, and it’s already known how to manufacture them.

What seems obvious, however — albeit only as a Fog Fact — is that the very success of repositioning drugs should be a red flag warning against the drug-based medicine or drug-first medicine or drug-besotted medicine that has become standard practice in the United States. The rationale for prescribing a drug is that it will fix what needs attending to without seriously and adversely affecting anything else, in other words that there are no serious “side” effects. But repositioning a drug shows that it has a comparably powerful effect on something other than its original target. In other words, “side” effects may be as powerful and significant as the originally intended effect. Ashburn and Thor give a number of examples:

Cymbalta was originally prescribed to treat depression, anxiety, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and fibromyalgia (all at about the same dosage, which might cause one to wonder how many different mechanisms or systems are actually being affected besides the intended one). The listed side effects do not include anything about urination, yet the drug has been repositioned as Duloxetine SUI to treat “stress urinary incontinence (SUI), a condition characterized by episodic loss of urine associated with sharp increases in intra-abdominal pressure (for example, when a person laughs, coughs or sneezes)”; and “Lilly is currently anticipating worldwide sales of Duloxetine SUI to approach US $800 million within four years of launch”.

Dapoxetine was not a success for analgesia or against depression, but came into its own to treat premature ejaculation.

Thalidomide was originally marketed to treat morning sickness, but it produced limb defects in babies. Later it was found effective against “erythema nodosum laprosum (ENL), an agonizing inflammatory condition of leprosy”. Moreover, since the birth defects may have been associated with blocking development of blood vessels, thalidomide might work against cancer; and indeed “Celgene recorded 2002 sales of US $119 million for Thalomid, 92% of which came from off-label use of the drug in treating cancer, primarily multiple myeloma . . . . Sales reached US $224 million in 2003 . . . . The lesson from the thalidomide story is that no drug is ever understood completely, and repositioning, no matter   how unlikely, often remains a possibility” [emphasis added: once the FDA has approved drug A to treat condition B, individual doctors are allowed to prescribe it for other conditions as well, although drug companies are not allowed to advertise it for those other uses. That legal restriction is far from always honored, as demonstrated by the dozens of settlements paid by drug companies for breaking the law.]

Perhaps the prize for repositioning (so far) goes to Pfizer, which turned sildenafil, an unsuccessful treatment for angina, into Viagra, a very successful treatment for “erectile dysfunction”: “By 2003, sildenafil had annual sales of US $1.88 billion and nearly 8 million men were taking sildenafil in the United States alone”.

At any rate, Ashburn and Thor could not be more clear: The whole principle behind repositioning is that it’s more profitable to see what existing drugs might do than to look for what might be biologically speaking the best treatment for a given ailment. So anti-depressants get approved and prescribed against smoking, premenstrual dysphoria, or obesity; a Parkinson’s drug and a hypertension drug are prescribed for ADHD; an anti-anxiety medication is prescribed for irritable bowel syndrome; Alzheimer’s, whose etiology is not understood, gets treated with Reminyl which, as Nivalin, (generic galantamine) is also supposed to treat polio and paralysis. Celebrex, a VIOXX-type anti-arthritic, can be prescribed against breast and colon cancer; treatment of enlarged prostate is by the same drug used to combat hair loss; the infamous “morning after” pill for pregnancy termination can treat “psychotic major depression”; Raloxifene to treat breast and prostate cancer is magically able also to treat osteoporosis.

And so on and so forth. This whole business of drug repositioning exposes the fallacy of the concept that it is possible to find “a silver bullet”, a chemical substance that can be introduced into the human body to accomplish just one desired thing. That concept ought to be recognized as absurd a priori, since we know that human physiology is an interlocking network of signals, feedback, attempted homeostasis, defenses against intruders.

It is one thing to use, for brief periods of time, toxins that can help the body clear infections — sulfa drugs, antibiotics. It is quite another conceit and ill-founded hubris to administer powerful chemicals to decrease blood pressure, lower cholesterol, and the like, in other words, to attempt to alter interlocking self-regulating systems as though one single aspect of them could be altered without doing God-only-knows-what-else elsewhere.

The editorial in the first issue (January 2002) of Nature Reviews Drug Discovery was actually clear about this: “drugs need to work in whole, living systems”.

But that editorial also gave the reason for the present-day emphasis on medicine by drugs: “Even with vastly increased R & D spending, the top 20 pharmaceutical companies still churn out only around 20 drugs per year between them, far short of the 4-5 new drugs that analysts say they each need to produce to justify their discovery and development costs”.

And the editorial also mentions one of the deleterious “side” effects of the rush to introduce new drugs: “off-target effects . . . have led to the vastly increased number of costly late-stage failures seen in recent years (approximately half the withdrawals in the past 20 years have occurred since 1997)” — “off-target effects” being a synonym for “side” effects.

It’s not only that new drugs are being rushed to market. As a number of people have pointed out, drug companies also create their own markets by inventing diseases like attention-deficit disorder, erectile dysfunction, generalized anxiety disorder, and so on and on. Any deviation of behavior from what might naively be described as “normal” offers the opportunity to discover a new disease and to re-position a drug.

The ability of drug companies to sell drugs for new diseases is helped by the common misconception about “risk factors”. Medication against hypertension or high cholesterol, for example, is based on the presumption that both those raise the risk of heart attack, stroke, and other undesirable contingencies because both are “risk factors” for such contingencies. But “risk factor” describes only an observed association, a correlation, not an identified causation. Correlation never proves causation. “Treating” hypertension or high cholesterol makes sense only if those things are causes, and they have not been shown to be that. On the other hand, lifelong ingestion of drugs is certainly known to have potentially dangerous consequences.

Modern drug-based, really drug-obsessed medical practice is as misguided as “Seeking Immortality”.

Posted in fraud in medicine, legal considerations, media flaws, medical practices, prescription drugs | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Vaccines: The good, the bad, and the ugly

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2017/05/21

Only in recent years have I begun to wonder whether there are reasons not to follow official recommendations about vaccination. In the 1930s, I had the then-usual vaccinations, including (in Austria, perhaps Europe) against smallpox. A few others in later years when I traveled quite a bit.

But the Andrew Wakefield affair *, and the introduction of Gardasil **, showed me that official sources had become as untrustworethy about vaccines as they have become about prescription drugs.

It seems that Big Pharma had just about run out of new diseases to invent against which to create drugs and had turned to snake-oil-marketing of vaccines. We are told, for example, that 1 in 3 people will experience shingles in their lifetime and should get vaccinated against it. Have one in three of your aged friends ever had shingles? Not among my family and friends. One of my buddies got himself vaccinated, and came down with shingles a couple of weeks later. His physician asserted that the attack would have been more severe if he hadn’t been vaccinated — no need for a control experiment, or any need to doubt official claims.

So it’s remarkable that the Swedish Government has resisted attempts to make vaccinations compulsory (“Sweden bans mandatory vaccinations over ‘serious health concerns’” by Baxter Dmitry, 12 May 2017).

That article includes extracts from an interview of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., on the Tucker Carlson Show, which included such tidbits as the continued presence of thimerosal (organic mercury compound) in many vaccines including the seasonal flu vaccines that everyone is urged to get; and the huge increase in number of things against which vaccination is being recommended:

“I got three vaccines and I was fully compliant. I’m 63 years old. My children got 69 doses of 16 vaccines to be compliant. And a lot of these vaccines aren’t even for communicable diseases. Like Hepatitis B, which comes from unprotected sex, or using or sharing needles – why do we give that to a child on the first day of their life? And it was loaded with mercury.”

 

————————————————–

“Autism and Vaccines: Can there be a final unequivocal answer?”
      “YES: Thimerosal CAN induce autism”

** See “Gardasil and Cervarix: Vaccination insanity” and many other posts recovered with SEARCH for “Gardasil” on my blogs: https://scimedskeptic.wordpress.com/?s=gardasil and https://hivskeptic.wordpress.com/?s=gardasil

Posted in fraud in medicine, legal considerations, medical practices, politics and science, prescription drugs, science is not truth, science policy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: | 1 Comment »

All vaccines are not the same; some are worse than useless

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/07/02

I am not among those who question the value of all vaccines on principle. I don’t doubt the value of vaccines in controlling smallpox, measles, polio. I do question the use of adjuvants and preservatives in vaccines, and I do think it makes sense to vaccinate babies against measles and the rest in single shots administered over a period of time instead of all at once in multiple vaccines.

But it gets difficult not to over-react as Big Pharma concentrates on generating vaccines that do more harm than any good that has ever been proven.

It seems that Big Pharma has been running out of new diseases to invent (see Moynihan & Cassels, Selling Sickness: How the World’s Biggest Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients and other works listed in “What’s Wrong with Present-Day Medicine”) and has been turning increasingly to inventing vaccines supposed to guard against old or new infections.

The expected but not forthcoming “swine flu” epidemic led to rapid invention and marketing of a vaccine that turned out to have nasty “side” effects, for example, “How a swine flu shot led to narcolepsy”.

Gardasil and Cervarix, anti-HPV vaccines claimed to prevent cervical cancer, are a scandalous illustration; see for example “Merck Dr. Exposes Gardasil as Ineffective, Deadly, Very Profitable”  and related links. The only suggestion that HPV causes cervical cancer — or rather, that 4 out of four or five times that number of strains of HPV cause cervical cancer — comes from a correlation: those strains have often been found in women who have cervical cancer.

But correlations never, never, never prove causation, no matter that too many medical “experts” ignore this well established, long established fact.

I’ve become all too cynical about Big Pharma, lack of regulation, conflicts of interest, and the like. Yet I was taken aback to find that the National Institutes of Health profit from royalties from sales of Gardasil, and that there are exemptions to the Freedom of Information Act that enable them to hide that fact and the amounts involved.

Posted in conflicts of interest, fraud in medicine, funding research, legal considerations, medical practices, politics and science, prescription drugs | Tagged: , , | 7 Comments »

Who looks at evidence? Almost no one

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/06/28

I’ve been a crank for a long time about Loch Ness Monsters, frustrated because I can’t get people to look at Tim Dinsdale’s 1960 film which shows quite clearly a huge animal swimming in Loch Ness, submerging while still throwing up a massive wake.

For more than a decade, I’ve been a crank about HIV not causing AIDS, frustrated because I can’t get people to look at the clear evidence that HIV tests don’t track something infectious, and that the numbers in plain sight on the website of the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, rates of sexual transmission at less than 1 per 1000 acts of unprotected intercourse, mean that HIV cannot cause an epidemic.

Now I’ve become a crank about human-caused climate change, frustrated because people won’t look at the clear evidence that carbon dioxide has been increasing steadily even as the global temperature was level or dropping form the 1940s into the 1970s, when the experts were predicting an Ice Age; and as the global temperature has not increased since the end of the 1990s.

Why don’t people look at evidence?

Because, I’ve finally realized, they don’t want to risk having to change their mind. There is no positive incentive and plenty of negative incentive. It’s beyond cognitive dissonance, which is to evade the significance of evidence after having come across it. It’s obviously even better not to have come across the evidence at all.

On human-caused climate change (HCCC), disbelief is expressed loudly and publicly by “conservatives” (in my view more accurately described as reactionaries) who have that opinion for the wrong reasons, namely the belief that economic free markets are the most important thing and regulating anything is bad.

“Liberals” or “progressives”, on the other hand (who are actually not liberal or progressive but simply knee-jerk politically correct) don’t look at the evidence because they don’t need to, it’s of no interest to them, they would take their stance that humans cause environmental damage no matter what. And they maintain perfect deniability, they are blameless, they were just accepting what the authorities, the experts, have been saying loudly and incessantly.

Most of my family and friends treat my “reactionary” stance on HCCC as a minor flaw, allowing me space because I tend to get caught up in Quixotic stuff all the time. They have no interest in looking at the evidence because they are completely comfortable with the notion of HCCC because it fits their anti-reactionary political views — which I happen to share. If it turns out that this HCCC is mistaken, there would be all sorts of undesirable consequences, in particular that reactionary views might appear to have been vindicated.

I was distressed when Stephen Colbert took HCCC as proven. I am not happy when all the MSNBC crowd does so, but they’ve become too extreme for me anyway and I rarely watch. But I was very unhappy when Jon Stewart took HCCC as proven. And Pope Francis may have been the last straw (in the wind, as far as ever changing public opinion). Though I did get a sort of sardonic enjoyment from the pundits who pointed out that the Pope knew what he was talking about because he had been a chemist. And I am getting continuing Schadenfreude over the contortions of the Republican presidential candidates as they are forced to comment on the Pope’s encyclical.

Evidence-seeking, I realize, is an obsession of perhaps the tiniest minority there is. On the dangers of modern medical practice, there are just a few dozen voices crying out publicly in the wilderness. On HIV/AIDS, there is our Rethinking AIDS  group of some dozens of people, with a few thousand more quietly agreeing. On HCCC, there are a few academic types like myself who got here because of the evidence, and who subsist uncomfortably in the association with people whose political and social views we do not share, to put it mildly.

I’m beginning to accept that none of the items in my bucket list will see the light of an enlightened day within my lifetime: Nessie discovery, rejection of HIV=AIDS, rejection of carbon-dioxide-is-hurting-us.

But I do remain curious about how the “authorities” will adjust when reality eventually catches up with them irrevocably.

[Corrected 8 August 2015 in paragraph 7]

Posted in consensus, denialism, fraud in medicine, fraud in science, global warming, media flaws, medical practices, politics and science, science is not truth, science policy, unwarranted dogmatism in science | Tagged: , , , , | 11 Comments »

How (not) to measure the efficacy of drugs

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2015/02/19

Innumerable books and articles have described the flaws of contemporary drug-based medicine, notably the way drugs are approved: the Food and Drug Administration requires only 2 successful trials of 6 months duration — even if there have been many unsuccessful trials as well. Accordingly, drugs have had to be withdrawn from the market because of their toxicity sooner and sooner after their initial approval (p. 238 ff. in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine, McFarland 2012). It is becoming quite common to see a drug being advertised by its manufacturers at the same time as a law firm is canvassing for patients harmed by the drug to join their class-action suit (today, for example, with Xarelto, approved in 2008 and for extended uses in 2011).

Not widely noted or understood is that the statistical criterion for efficacy of a drug is inappropriate. What concerns patients (and ought to concern doctors) is how big an effect a drug has; but the approval process only requires that it be better than placebo, or than a competing drug, at “statistical significance” of p≤ 0.05. The latter is already a very weak criterion, allowing the result to be wrong once in 20 trials. But even more inappropriate is that the effect size need not be large. If one uses a large enough number of guinea pigs, even a tiny difference can become “statistically significant”. For instance, clopidogrel (Plavix) is prescribed for prevention of stroke, and a study found it better at 75 mg/day, at statistical significance of p = 0.043, than aspirin at 325 mg/day. But it took nearly 20,000 trial subjects to reach this conclusion, because the reduction in risk of an adverse event was only from 5.83% (per year) to 5.32% *. One might judge this as trivial and not worth the extra cost and extra danger of side effects compared to aspirin, one of the safest drugs as demonstrated by decades of use.

Moreover, meaningful for patients is the change in absolute risk brought about by an intervention, not the relative reduction in risk compared to something else. The occurrence of an adverse (stroke) event is about 5% per year in older people; the absolute reduction brings it to perhaps 4.5%, about 1 in 22 instead of 1 in 20. Trivial, especially considering that such small differences, even from large trials, may actually be artefacts of some flaw or other in the trial protocol or practice.

The easiest measure of efficacy to understand, but almost never shared with patients or doctors, is NNT: the number of patients that needs to be treated in order to achieve the desired result in 1 patient. These numbers reveal an aspect of drug treatment that is not much emphasized: no drug is 100% effective in every patient.
Even less commonly shared is NNH: the number of patients who must receive a drug in order to have 1 patients harmed by that drug. This reveals an aspect of drug treatment that is not at all emphasized, indeed deliberately avoided: every drug has adverse effects to some degree.

A fine exposition of this appeared in the New York Times: “How to measure a medical treatment’s potential for harm”: to prevent 1 heart attack over a 2-year period, 2000 patients need to be treated (NNT = 2000 — the benefit is 1 in 1000); but aspirin can also cause bleeding, NNH = 3333. So the chance of benefit — very small to start with — is only about twice the chance of harm. In other cases — mammograms are mentioned, and antibiotics to treat ear infections in children, NNH is large compared to NNT; yet current medical practice goes against this evidence.

More examples are given by Peter Elias.

Statins show up very badly indeed when evaluated in this manner:

StatinsNNT

 

For other critiques of using statins, see “STATINS are VERY BAD for you, especially FOR YOUR MUSCLES”;  “Statins weaken muscles by design”;  “Statins are very bad also for your brain”;  “Statins: Scandalous new guidelines”.

——————————————————————
* Melody Ryan, Greta Combs, & Laroy P. Penix, “Preventing stroke in patients with Transient Ischemic Attacks”, American Family Physician, 60(1999) 2329-36

Posted in fraud in medicine, medical practices, prescription drugs | Tagged: , , , | 5 Comments »

Contemporary science and medicine are losing credibility

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/12/31

“The Demise of Science? Hundreds of computer generated studies have been published in respected scientific journals” describes more problems than just the publication of fake articles generated by computer programs.

“Independent research, where funding is unrelated to findings, has become a rarity, and the end result is a dramatic deterioration of credible science” is spot on. What used to be the place for independent purely truth-seeking “basic” research, the “ivory tower” of academe, has become a place where budding researchers must find their own research support from outside sources if they are to have a career — see e.g. Science has become another Bubble; Science rewards hucksters and spin artists, not soundly tested science; The business of for-profit “science”;  and links in those articles.

“The Demise of Science?” cites the increase in articles retracted because of falsification and other breaches of proper conduct.

Clinical trials are biased, and prescription drugs are now responsible for more deaths than anything but cancer and heart disease (David Healy, Pharmageddon, University of California Press, 2012; Peter C. Gøtzsche, Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma Has Corrupted Healthcare, Radcliffe, 2013).

A large proportion of published studies in medical matters cannot be reproduced.
Inveterate defenders of the mainstream will seek to discount the facts discussed in “The Demise of Science?” by noting that it is an Internet publication on a website that favors alternative medicine; but the same critique was made years ago by Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine:

It is simply no longer possible to believe
much of the clinical research that is published,
or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians
or authoritative medical guidelines

Drug companies and doctors: a story of corruption
New York Review of Books, 15 January 2009

Posted in fraud in medicine, fraud in science, funding research, science is not truth, scientific culture | Tagged: , | 2 Comments »

Corrupt “science” publications and meetings

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/12/20

The “publish-or-perish” syndrome, together with the low cost of “publishing” on-line, has brought an endless spate of new “journals” put out by entrepreneurs ready to cash in; and quality control is not a consideration, even as some of the “publishers” pay lip-service to peer review.

A correspondent  to my HIV/AIDS blog  contributed a link to a story at Retraction Watch  that shows how the urge to make money by “publishing” is not restricted to new entrepreneurs, it is alive and well at corporate giants like Elsevier, whose prime interest in proliferating publications means that they do not even exercise ordinary care in overseeing how they accept articles: they had to retract a number of published articles that had been accepted after faked “peer review” because the article authors were allowed to choose who the “peer reviewers” would be.

Elsevier, of course, also published advertisements for drug companies under the pretense that they were journals (Corruption in medical science: Ghostwriting), and emasculated the innovative Medical Hypotheses after unfounded initiatives by HIV/AIDS vigilantes (see Chapter 3 in Dogmatism in Science and Medicine).

A related phenomenon to fake and shoddy “journals” is the proliferation of “conferences” whose only purpose is self-promotion by individuals, institutions, or even perhaps countries, since China is a prominent venue for these occasions; again see Fake, deceptive, predatory Science Journals and Conferences. The invitations to pseudo-conferences are often so incompetently composed that they remind one of the emails from Nigeria that one has won a huge prize at a lottery or inherited a huge amount from a previously unknown relative. Below is a just-received specimen; note that I never responded to earlier invites as well as other signs that this is an unedited from letter; note the poor written expression and syntax; but above all, browse the list of “Keynote Speakers” and “Part” listing of “renowned speakers”; a number of academics are quite happy to enjoy a grant-paid sightseeing vacation in China at an event organized primarily by Big Pharma and an entrepreneurial pseudo-conference-arranging outfit. Don’t neglect the link to the organizational home to note the huckstering of sponsorships, exhibition space, and the registration fees that range from $1300 to $2000; as well as the list of eight other concurrent “conferences” .

—————————————————————————————–
Dear Henry H. Bauer,

How are you? I wish everything goes well with you!

This is an email to follow up my previous invitations. I have not heard from you for a couple of weeks since my first letter. Now we have received well responding from worldwide experts in planned sessions, in case you won’t miss it, we’ d like to extend our invitation again. I am writing to confirm whether you would like to attend this grand congress and present a speech. Would you please give me a tentative reply? Thank you very much.

I apologize for the inconvenience if the letter disturbed you more than once. On behalf of the Meeting Organizing Committee, it is my pleasure and privilege to invite you to be the Session speaker in the 7th Annual International Congress of Antibodies (ICA-2015).

The conference with the theme “Innovations from Defending Surface to Penetrating the Membrane” will be held during April 25-28, 2015 in Nanjing, China. If the suggested thematic session is not your current focused core, you may look through the whole sessions and transfer another one that fits your interest. We sincerely wish your participation.

Keynote Speakers:

Dr. Brian E. Harvey, Vice President, Pfizer Inc., USA
Dr. Liangzhi Xie, Founder & CEO, Sino Biological Inc., China
Dr. Andrew Wang, Chairman, Taiwan Antibody Association, Taiwan
Dr. Jonathan Milner, CEO, Abcam, UK
Dr. Chien-Hsing Ken Chang, Vice President, Research and Development, Immunomedics, Inc., USA
Dr. Michael Yu, Presidert, Innovent Biologics, Inc., China

We look forward to seeing you in Nanjing in 2015 for this influential event.

If you need any assistance about the conference, please do not hesitate to contact us at any time!

For more information, please visit: http://www.bitcongress.com/ica2015/default.asp
Sincerely yours,

Dannie
Organizing Commission of ICA-2015
East Area, F11, Building 1,
Dalian Ascendas IT Park,
1 Hui Xian Yuan,
Dalian Hi-tech Industrial Zone,
LN 116025, China
Tel: 0086-411-84575669-860
Email: dannie@bit-ica.com

PS: Part of Renowned Speakers:
Mr. Homan Chan, Investigator, Novartis Institute of Biomedical Research, USA
Dr. Tao Wu, Principal Scientist, Boehringer Ingelheim, USA
Dr. Liming Liu, Merck Research Laboratories, USA
Dr. Joshua DiNapoli, Senior Scientist, Sanofi Pasteur, USA
Dr. Ostendorp Ralf, Vice President, MorphoSys AG, Germany
Dr. Abdul Wajid, Senior Director, XOMA, USA
Dr. Ernesto Oviedo-Orta, Clinical Sciences Expert, Novartis Vaccines Diagnostics Siena, Italy
Dr. Guohong Wang, VP, Immunalysis Corporation, USA
Dr. Rong-Rong Zhu, Senior Scientist, EMD Millipore, USA
Dr. David P. Humphreys, Senior Group Leader, UCB-New Medicines, UK
Dr. Jian Li, Principal Scientist, Pfizer Inc., USA
Dr. Bing Kuang, Principal Scientist, Pfizer, USA
Dr. William Haseltine, Founder, Chairman of the Board and CEO, Human Genome Sciences, USA
Dr. Martin Lemmerer, Principal Scientist, Novartis Institutes for BioMedical Research, Inc., USA
Dr. Jijie Gu, Senior Principal Research Scientist, AbbVie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USA
Dr. Ronald C. Desrosiers, Professor, Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Eva Kimby, Professor, Karolinska University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Joseph F. John, Professor and Chief, Medical University of South Carolina, USA
Dr. Dongfeng Tan, Professor, the University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, USA
Dr. Paul Fisch, Group leader and Professor, University of Freiburg, Germany
Dr. Koshi Mimori, Professor & Director, Kyushu University Beppu Hospital, Japan
Dr. Peggy Hsieh, Professor, Florida State University, USA
Dr. Rudiger Schade, Professor, Charité-University Medicine of Berlin, Germany
Dr. Tae Young Jang, Professor, Inha University, Korea
Dr. Oddmund Bakke, Professor, University of Oslo, Norway
Dr. Rajat Sethi, Chair, California Health Sciences University, USA
Mr. Tim Bernard, CEO, Pivotal Scientific Limited, UK
Dr. Dan Zhang, Chairman and CEO, Fountain Medical Development Ltd., China
Dr. Kaia Agarwal, President, Regulatory Compass, LLC., USA
Ms. Sandra Frantzen, Shareholder, McAndrews, Held Malloy, Ltd., USA
Dr. Seth D. Ginsberg, President, Global Healthy Living Foundation, USA
Dr. James R Harris, CEO, Healthcare Economics LLC., USA
Dr. Martin Gleeson, CSO, Genalyte Inc., USA
Dr. Mingjiu Chen, President and CEO, biosynergics Inc., China
Dr. Jane Dancer, Chief Operating Officer, F-star, UK
Dr. Xiaodong Yang, President and CEO, Apexigen, USA
Dr. Wenzhi Tian, President and CEO, Huabo Biopharm Co Ltd, China
Dr. Ralph V. Boccia, Director, Center for Cancer and Blood Disorders, USA
Dr. Jun Bao, Senior Vice President, Shenogen Pharma Group, China
Dr. Francesc Mitjans, Chief Scientific Officer, Lykera Biomed, Spain
Dr. Fiona Greer, Director, SGS M-Scan, UK
Dr. Albrecht Gröner, Head Pathogen Safety, CSL Behring, Germany
Dr. Chung-Chou Lee, CEO of Medigen Vaccinology Corporation, Taiwan
Dr. Chengbin Wu, President of RD, Shanghai CP Guojian Pharmaceutical, China
Dr. Ni Jian, General Manager, National Engineering Research Center of Antibody Medicine, China
Dr. Ian Q. Li, Chief scientific Officer, ATGCell Inc., Canada
Dr. Terry Dyck, President, CEO, IGY Immune Technologies Life Sciences Inc., Canada
Dr. Vijay E-Bionary, CEO, E-Bionary Technologies, India
Dr. Allan Riting Liu, Vice President & Senior Advisor, Wanbang Biopharmaceutical Group, China
512

————————————————————————————————–

All I can say is, FOR SHAME, to everyone associated with such scams.

Posted in conflicts of interest, fraud in medicine, fraud in science, peer review, scientific culture | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Public health VERSUS individual health

Posted by Henry Bauer on 2014/11/23

“Public health and individual health”  pointed out that “public health” deals in statistics and averages, and some public-health policies and practices can bring actual harm to some individuals unless physicians recognize the danger and treat each patient as the unique individuals that they are.

It seems that things are even considerably worse than I knew.

“How medical care is being corrupted”  reveals that some insurance companies have taken it on themselves to reward doctors for choosing particular drugs and treatments and penalizing them for not doing so. The article is no outsiders’ radical rant: it is by two physicians at Harvard Medical School and is published in the New York Times.

The insurance companies have financial considerations as their prime motive, and their criteria are inevitably statistical and “on the average”. To drive doctors into practicing by the insurance company guidelines means driving doctors not to treat their patients as unique individuals.

Half a century ago already, health-insurance considerations brought into being the damaging belief that “high” blood pressure represents a risk of cardiovascular disease or adverse events, because blood pressure correlates with such events. But it correlates only because both blood pressure and risk of cardiovascular problems both increase with age, naturally and inevitably. No correlations ever prove causation, furthermore. For half a century, medical practice has continued the absurd practice of defining “hypertension” independently of age, thereby classifying as “illness” levels of blood pressure that are perfectly normal at a given age. Something like 75% of American seniors are being exposed chronically, lifelong, to the continuing negative “side” effects of blood-pressure-lowering drugs for no good reason and with no expectable benefit.

The present direct incentives to doctors to harm their patients seems a natural, normal, progression of allowing health-care policies to be determined by the financial marketplace.

You get what you pay for.

Posted in conflicts of interest, fraud in medicine, medical practices, prescription drugs | Tagged: | Leave a Comment »