Alzheimer's Fraud

[ysabetwordsmith]

Two decades of Alzheimer's diagnosis and research have been based on what is at best slovenly science and at worst deliberate fraud. Note that the perpetrators are still making money in this field.

Shit like this is why so many people have stopped trusting scientists in general and the medical industry in particular.  I don't find it shocking.  I find it business as usual.  Appalling, yes, but hardly a surprise.

Comments

[siliconshaman]

This is what happens when science is motivated by money. People are greedy and will cheat.

[tarlanx]

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I've pointed this out a lot. It's how we wind up with some medications that are barely more effective than a placebo.

[dewline]

I fear that we're going to keep on seeing this.

[siliconshaman]

Agreed... I think Science or maybe Nature did a meta survey and found that around 30-40% of published papers were unreplicatable... i.e fake.

Mostly ones sponsored by Pharma corps, but with a smattering of Chinese groups where the motivation is prestige not money.

Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I most often see indications of the problem in metasurveys. That's when they're looking at all the studies they can find on a given topic to search for trends and areas that need further inquiry. There are always some studies they can't use, due to insufficient relevance, lacking certain data, or flaws of science. Most metastudies indicate how many and/or what percentage of rejects they had in several categories. The number rejected for flawed scientific method is disturbingly high, often in the range you mentioned. Not just that they're nonreplicable, but major structural problems like lack of a control group that should've prevented publication in the first place.

Re: Yes ...

[siliconshaman]

I believe they rejected those that were simply flawed as they were looking for those that were fabricated.

Re: Yes ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

O_O If they did that, and the amounts were similar as they seem to be, then that means 60-80% of total studies are unreliable or worse than useless. Fuuuuuck.

That would explain a lot, though.

Re: Yes ...

[siliconshaman]

Well, the point was to look for falsified studies... seems they found more than they bargained for.

That said, there was a lot of peer reviewed papers on the luminiferous ether back in the day. I suspect the percentage of bad science hasn't really changed that much. Just there's more of a concentration of it when it comes to things like drug research...

[dewline]

Seeing as my father volunteered for two different cancer-treatment trial programmes in the years between his diagnosis and his death - among other, more recent considerations - I find such "business as usual" intolerable. The research has to be done, and therefore it should be done properly.

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

We're a long way from doing research properly. Historic studies were done on white men. It is still difficult to recruit truly diverse study groups, not just because many researchers don't care to, but also because disadvantaged groups like women and black people are damn well aware of past medical abuse and will join only if desperate. Consequently, there are a bunch of drugs in play that work on white men but not so much on women, black people, etc. due to genetic differences.

Re: Well ...

[dewline]

All of which needs addressing, too, absolutely!

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

The whole system is a mess. It's designed to make money and exert power, rather than to help people. It does what it's designed to do, and not what people actually need. Fixing that while society stands will be difficult if not impossible, because the power is all in the hands of people who benefit from the current clusterfuck. It's the monopoly problem -- when there's only one provider, and no competition, service is poor. And the American Medical Association has a deadlock on medical care, with very little of any kind outside their control. That makes it hard to set up anything better, no matter how badly it is needed.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>And the American Medical Association has a deadlock on medical care, with very little of any kind outside their control.<<

/Advanced/ medical care.

Day-to-day medical care has always fallen to individual households and community institutions (such as church-run hospitals*), and in many cases was largely provided by relatives, women, and the lower classes (or lower class female relatives).
*I am not speaking of the modern hospital, but the church-run monastary hospitals, Mother Theresa's hospice work, etc.

It should be possible to create mutual aid networks or even a mutual aid society. Such a group could provide respite care and moral support (support groups). They could also train people in caregiving, first aid, EFA and some paramedic skills.

Society /cannot/ afford to forbid this sort of 'unskilled labor,' for several reasons, and they will find it similarly difficult to restrict into much.

Is is limited compared to what the AMA offers? Yes.

But remember - prior to 1600, your medical options went household, community, and then "well, let's get a priest in for last rights."

Also, if we can jury-rig ambulances during Covid, run crisis hotlines, and learn CPR from TV, we are a hell of a lot more capable than the establishment will give us credit for.

[cmcmck]

Like the slovenly science and deliberate fraud around autism and the appalling damage that also caused.

I was working in the field of autism when that blew. What a mess!

It seems nothing changes!

[dewline]

*sighs from emotional exhaustion*