Username:
Password:
Log me on automatically each visit
 
 
It is currently Mon Oct 25, 2021 6:35 am
Post a new topic Post a reply  [ 4 posts ]   
Author Message
 Post subject: Peer Reviewed Studies
PostPosted: Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:40 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 10:20 am
Posts: 497
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/ ... edirect=on


Quote:
Just as peer review fails to detect funding sources, it often also fails to catch ghostwriting, in which companies draft articles for academics who go on to publish them under their own names, sometimes with few or no changes. The editor of one journal told the Senate Finance Committee in 2010 that he suspected that at least a third of the papers submitted to his journal were ghostwritten by public relations agencies and paid for by pharmaceutical companies. Such articles have appeared in dozens of journals, and ghostwriting scandals have involved professors at the University of Pennsylvania, Brown and Harvard. Last year, court documents revealed that Monsanto ghostwrote articles that were published in peer-reviewed journals to counter research on the carcinogenicity of the pesticide glyphosate and to attack regulatory bodies.

Peer review has also sometimes stymied important research. Senior scientists are more likely to be asked to assess submissions, and they can shoot down articles that conflict with their own views. As a result, peer review can act as a shield to protect the status quo and suppress research viewed as radical or contrary to the established perspectives of referees. A 2015 study of 1,000 medical journal submissions found that of the papers that were eventually published, the 14 that became the most frequently cited were initially rejected. Groundbreaking studies by Sir Frank MacFarlane Burnet, Rosalind Yalow, Baruch Blumberg and others were rejected by peer reviewers, yet later led to Nobel Prizes.

Top
OfflineProfileReply with quote
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 07, 2020 11:11 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 10:20 am
Posts: 497
All Medical discoveries were first observed as anecdotal observations!

Some break throughs that were anecdotal:

Antiseptic Handwashing

Newborn Incubators

Balloon Angioplasty

Viruses and Cancer

Helicobacter pylori and ulcers

Infectious Proteins (prions)

Germs Cause Disease

Heredity

Cancer Immunotherapy

Traumatic Brain Injuries in Sports

Quote:
Although medical science most often advances incrementally on the basis of an ever-accumulating body of evidence, occasionally leaps forward are made.

And quite often these leaps fly in the face of conventional wisdom. Today's standard of care was yesterday's experimental treatment, and before that, in many cases, it was one man or woman's visionary idea.

Top
OfflineProfileReply with quote
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 14, 2021 11:33 am 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 10:20 am
Posts: 497
https://www.medpagetoday.com/publicheal ... definition
Quote:
Florida Doctor Pleads Guilty to Faking Clinical Trial Data
— Yvelice Villaman-Bencosme, MD, admitted to fabricating data for a study of kids' asthma drug

A Florida doctor has pleaded guilty to falsifying clinical trial data for an asthma medication that was being studied in young children, the U.S. Department of Justice announced.

Yvelice Villaman-Bencosme, MD, admitted that, from 2013 to 2016, she participated in a scheme to defraud the pharmaceutical company behind the drug by fabricating data and participation in the clinical trial. The trial, conducted at Unlimited Medical Research in Miami, was meant to study the safety and efficacy of an asthma medication in children ages 4 to 11.

Villaman-Bencosme, who served as the primary investigator for clinical trials at Unlimited Medical Research, admitted that she falsified medical records to make it appear pediatric patients had arrived for scheduled visits, taken the study drugs as required, and received checks as payment for visits.

Last November, another employee of the clinic also pleaded guilty to falsifying data for the same trial. Lisett Raventos was the site director, director of clinical operations, and a study coordinator at Unlimited Medical Research. Two other defendants were also charged in the scheme.

Villaman-Bencosme and Raventos each face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Villaman-Bencosme will also pay a forfeiture judgment of $174,000, according to her plea agreement with the Justice Department, the Miami Herald reported.

Fabricating clinical trial data endangers consumers, acting assistant attorney general Jeffrey Bossert Clark of the Justice Department's civil division, said in a statement. It also erodes the public's trust in the drug-approval process, said U.S. attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the southern district of Florida.

Special-agent-in-charge Justin Fielder, of the FDA's office of criminal investigations, added that compromised data can have a deleterious impact on the agency's decisions about the safety and efficacy of medications.

It's certainly not the first conviction for faking clinical trial data. Last October, Sami Anwar, a business owner in Richland, Washington, was sentenced to 28 years in prison, and was ordered to pay $1.9 million in restitution and forfeit $5.6 million as proceeds of clinical trial fraud, the DOJ previously announced.

Anwar pocketed millions of dollars from pharmaceutical companies while dumping medications he claimed to be testing, and for fabricating data for a number of studies, the Tri-City Herald reported. Hundreds of trial participants were affected, including several who suffered serious medical complications and another who died.

Top
OfflineProfileReply with quote
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 16, 2021 2:04 pm 
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 10:20 am
Posts: 497
https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/ ... HphFyxNPTg

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

John P. A. Ioannidis
Published: August 30, 2005
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124



Quote:
Abstract
Summary

There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.

Top
OfflineProfileReply with quote
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topic Post a reply  [ 4 posts ] 
 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum
 
Search for:
Jump to:  
cron