# Half of published research is unreliable, if not completely false



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

According to Dr Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet - considered to be one of the most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world - a lot of published articles are in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.

See this article:- http://www.sott.net/article/296810-Editor-in-chief-of-The-Lancet-Half-of-published-research-is-unreliable-if-not-completely-false

In short - we're being lied to by dishonest and corrupt researchers and scientists and it's simply not possible to believe much of the clinical research being published.

Somehow I don't find this surprising at all..

What are your thoughts?


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

I acknowledge that our scientific system has much room for improvement, but there is no better alternative to science.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

TDX said:


> I acknowledge that our scientific system has much room for improvement, but there is no better alternative to science.


'there is no better alternative to science'.. Give us a break mate. You seem to be against everything except psyche meds. Well.. good luck with that attitude. You're gonna need it.

This view of believing science and only science has all the answers is crazy. It's an obsession beyond insanity. Why exclude possible treatments that may well help you? You're ill, yet you won't accept treatments that could help you recover, on the ridiculous basis that there efficacy hasn't been proven by a bunch of researchers and published in a medical journal. Man that's self sabotage if I've ever seen it. You've got some pretty deep work to do...

.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

I read a thread a while back where TDX listed all the methods he'd tried.. So no, I'm not making wild assumptions. Maybe you should've asked me how I knew before you jumped to wild assumptions!

I did read the full article. Did you? Small sample sizes and insignificant effects are only 2 of the problems stated with the published research. There's more than that if you care to acknowledge it. I think you might need to reread it. He mentions a list of reasons why the published research is unreliable or in fact complete B/S.

What's the point in critically discussing research that's mostly based on lies? Personally I'd rather spend my time discussing the truth. You shut yourself off from the truth. And that's your loss not mine.

I'll ask you the same question I asked TDX. Why limit your treatment? When there's so many other modalities of treatment (apart from science based) that work, why ignore them? You're self sabotaging your recovery. Like TDX you're so heavily biased with your thinking. and you've got the audacity to call others narrow minded? OMG. This belief of, if it's not proven by science it's worthless is completely narrow minded and I feel sorry for you. Again, why deny yourself the opportunity for recovery?

Ohh please spare us.. 'the people who believe the testable and the untestable can ever be considered comparable'. It bothers me beyond words to know that people who follow that school of thought even exist.

Do you live in a laboratory?


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

> This view of believing science and only science has all the answers is crazy.


I never said that science has all answers. There are probably many questions that cannot be answered using scientific methods, for example life after death. But we don't have anything that is better.



> You're ill, yet you won't accept treatments that could help you recover, on the ridiculous basis that there efficacy hasn't been proven by a bunch of researchers and published in a medical journal.


This is not true, because I already lowered the measuring stick. If I would not accept treatments, because there is not sufficient evidence from clinical trials I wouldn't want to try Lamotrigine or Naltrexone, because for both of them no randomized controlled trials of sufficient sample size have been carried out. I'm even chosing therapies just because of case reports and theoretical reasons.

But I refuse to try treatments which...

1. ...don't make any sense at all from a theoretical point of view.
2. ...have been around for *decades* or even more than 100 years, but without sufficient scientific evidence for their efficacy, while their proponents propogate their use and make money out of them.
3. ...have been shown to be damaging.
4. ...are propagated by people who are clearly charlatons.

All these points are satified by the dissociative disorders crowd and by other alternative treatments like homeopathy, acupuncture and psychoanalysis.



> I'll ask you the same question I asked TDX. Why limit your treatment? When there's so many other modalities of treatment (apart from science based) that work, why ignore them?


There are also practical reasons. Alternative treatments are not convered by insurance, which is bad when you don't have an income. And even if insurance would do this, I would not want to throw money into the throat of shady people.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

TDX said:


> I would not want to throw money into the throat of shady people.


You mean shady people like researchers and scientists who fudge the results to satisfy an agenda?


----------



## inferentialpolice (Nov 26, 2012)

> TDX: I'm even chosing therapies just because of case reports and theoretical reasons.
> 
> But I refuse to try treatments which...
> 
> ...


Re: case report: So if a therapist who worked with someone with DP psycho-dynamically and achieved a result, and published it as a case study, you would give that therapist a try?

Can you state what doesn't make sense about psychotherapy from "a theoretical point of view"?


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

> Re: case report: So if a therapist who worked with someone with DP psycho-dynamically and achieved a result, and published it as a case study, you would give that therapist a try?


No, because it doesn't "make any sense at all from a theoretical point of view".

Anoher reason is that psychodynamic Psychotherapy exists since more than 100 years, but data on it's efficacy is still lacking. A therapy that has been around for such a long time, but without much evidence for it's efficacy, has to be rated differentily than an approach that is new.

Beyond this case-reports about psychodynamic psychotherapy have a low credibility, because the long duration of the treatment (often several years) makes them prone to several sources of bias.



> Can you state what doesn't make sense about psychotherapy from "a theoretical point of view"?


There is no coherent scientifically based concept for a disorder-specific psychotherapy for DPD. The only to some extend serious approach is by Hunter et al. But it has it's problems and in my opinion might work only for a select subgroup.



> You mean shady people like researchers and scientists who fudge the results to satisfy an agenda?


Yes but only if they really "fudge the results to satisfy an agenda".


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

TDX said:


> Anoher reason is that psychodynamic Psychotherapy exists since more than 100 years, but data on it's efficacy is still lacking. A therapy that has been around for such a long time, but without much evidence for it's efficacy, has to be rated differentily than an approach that is new.


When I read psychodynamic psychotherapy has existed for more than 100 years, but data on it's efficacy is still lacking, the obvious question this brings up to me is why. Why is there a lack of data?


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

> When I read psychodynamic psychotherapy has existed for more than 100 years, but data on it's efficacy is still lacking, the obvious question this brings up to me is why. Why is there a lack of data?


For two reasons:

1. For a long time the psychoanalytic community had a aversion to science, which might stem from the fact that almost all it's claims, which were testable, were disproved. They only conduct treatment trials by now, because insurance cut off the money supply.

2. In psychotherapy research there is a high publication bias, which means only studies, which have a positive outcome, are published. I've read several articles about it and even high ranking researcher aknowledge this problem.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

Anyone who bothers to read your pointless posts knows at least something about your hopeless situation. And yes, we've read about your flimsy attempt at trauma therapy too.

For fucks sake, the author is the editor in chief of the Lancet! Isn't anyone's word good enough for you? Here you are picking apart his claims, asking for proof, not happy with his use of the word 'perhaps'. OMFG. Are his qualifications not good enough for you?

Why don't you send this post to HIM and ask HIM to justify every word he says.

Like he says - do your own research on this subject. There're plenty of articles out there that dispute peer reviewed empirical published papers (or whatever you call them). But I'm guessing you don't want to see the truth and that's why you get so defensive anytime anyone questions your beliefs. You're so predictable.

The bottom line (and the point of this topic) is exactly what the title of the article says - HALF OF PUBLISHED RESEARCH IS UNRELIABLE, IF NOT COMPLETELY FALSE. I don't know what planet you come from, but on the planet I live COMPLETELY FALSE = BULLSHIT.! It's not complicated. In fact it's quite simple.

Stop trying to pull a smokescreen over the truth with your over complicated view of language. You can't see the trees from the woods matey. Some things in life are quite simple you know..

And while you're at it, just keep downing those loved filled science pills matey... I'm sure they'll bring you a long and fulfilling life.. hahaha


----------



## Xerei (Feb 17, 2010)

I never trusted science much, I trust old people who say "ah, yes, that, my grandmother knew how to help it, take xxx herbs bla bla bla", I also trust ancient medicine, natural remedies, inexpensive or free treatment, and of course, God.
Why do I trust free or inexpensive treatment? cause no one makes money off it.
In case ya havent noticed, money brings a lot of evil, including, but not limited to false hopes, wars, fake remedies and so on.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

Xerei said:


> I never trusted science much, I trust old people who say "ah, yes, that, my grandmother knew how to help it, take xxx herbs bla bla bla", I also trust ancient medicine, natural remedies, inexpensive or free treatment, and of course, God.
> Why do I trust free or inexpensive treatment? cause no one makes money off it.
> In case ya havent noticed, money brings a lot of evil, including, but not limited to false hopes, wars, fake remedies and so on.


Xerei.. Well said. You're exactly right about the money side of it. Not many people see that connection but it's important they do because a lot of modern medical treatment is ruled by it. Even IF there's another far better way to treat an illness, the one that makes the most money is the usually one that's offered in western medicine.

Hardly anyone seems to care about the side effects of western medicine either. People are so brainwashed they accept the awful side effects as being 'normal'. There're far better ways to treat the symptoms of DPD than the shit they offer. Yet barely anyone on this forum talks about the natural cures. That's totally weird to me and shows how mind controlled people are into believing that western medicine has the all answers (even though they don't).

People generally trust scientists implicitly without even questioning the material they put forward. This amount of trust extends to doctors as well. We're taught to trust anything they say - even if they know virtually nothing about an illness - ie DPD, patients will still trust every word that comes from their GP's mouths even though they're basically naive. To me, that's utterly ridiculous. I've sat with doctors who openly admitted their knowledge of dissociative disorders was limited, yet 5 minutes later they start prescribing meds. Well I say that's unethical, and they have a moral obligation to learn more about the condition and the effects of meds before they start 'treating' it.

Here's some more food for thought regarding the 'honesty and integrity' of our trusted medical researchers..

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-17/high-profile-researcher-admits-to-fabricating-scientific-results/6781958

This is getting out of control. The fabrication of results to suit an agenda - usually to expedite medications coming onto the market is absolutely unethical and yet, does anyone ever get charged with a crime? I highly doubt it. I'm yet to read about one person being charged for misleading doctors and potentially endangering patients with medicines which are not understood.


----------



## TDX (Jul 12, 2014)

Nobody says that the system is perfect. We all know that there are many problems that have to be solved, but we don't have an alternative, especially not "natural cures". With nature alone and without modern medicine our life expectancy would be 30 years and most babys would die because of simple infections. Without science I wouldn't be able to write this post.


----------



## Xerei (Feb 17, 2010)

Has anyone tried holy basil etc? I found it helped anxiety greatly


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

^ I don't think I've tried Holy Basil. It's looks good though and well worth a try. I normally leave the herbal side of things up to a naturopath. I haven't felt the need to take anything for most of this year because I feel pretty stable .

I'd be interested to see if any others have tried it and how they found it...


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

TDX said:


> Nobody says that the system is perfect. We all know that there are many problems that have to be solved, but we don't have an alternative, especially not "natural cures". With nature alone and without modern medicine our life expectancy would be 30 years and most babys would die because of simple infections. Without science I wouldn't be able to write this post.


The western medical system needs to be thrown away my friend. It runs on power, corruption and lies. If you're happy with that, so be it - just don't complain when you're not getting the assistance you need.

If you cared to open your eyes, you'd find that natural remedies have been used for eons with much success. A lot of modern day pharmaceutical medicines are derived from natural sources anyway. So to say 'natural cures don't work' is just plain stoopid. The pharma companies add to and alter the composition so they can then put a patent on it - after which, they make a lot of money. And that's what it's all about. The more you take - the more money they make. The slower your improvement - the more money they make. And if you can't get well at all and need to take meds for the rest of your life - Bingo!

They're ancient cultures all around the world who've used nothing but natural remedies to cure their sicknesses and illnesses. The fact the western medicine hasn't looked into all of them and doesn't understand how or why they work doesn't mean they don't work.

I think you're exaggerating a little about our life expectancy without western medicine. Sure, it wouldn't be as long, but not everyone cares about how long they live. I'll bet you most would rather have quality over quantity.

I'm not saying western medicine never works. I'm saying that in many cases (especially mental illnesses and more especially the dissociative disorders) there are far better options to try out. And don't give me this b/s that no natural remedies work ok? You're talking to someone who has been using natural treatments since before you were born. Do you honestly think I'm an idiot and I'm throwing my money away?


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

Here's another couple of articles worth a read...

http://www.sott.net/article/300231-All-in-a-days-work-Bribery-and-fraud-common-in-BigPharma-cartel

http://www.sott.net/article/203185-Big-Pharma-Researcher-Admits-to-Faking-Dozens-of-Research-Studies-for-Pfizer-Merck


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

Zed said:


> According to Dr Horton, the current editor-in-chief of the Lancet - considered to be one of the most respected peer-reviewed medical journals in the world - a lot of published articles are in fact unreliable at best, if not completely false.
> 
> See this article:- http://www.sott.net/article/296810-Editor-in-chief-of-The-Lancet-Half-of-published-research-is-unreliable-if-not-completely-false
> 
> ...


My thoughts are you've completely misunderstood. You are not being lied to at all and the idea of 'over half' of research being bad is simply ridiculous and baseless. By the way, the Lancet is a medical, not scientific journals to be strictly accurate about it.....

The reliability of science can always be improved, but it is improved by the sientists themselves - the very people you're attacking. So your analysis, at least for me, makes no sense.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

Dr B said:


> My thoughts are you've completely misunderstood. You are not being lied to at all and the idea of 'over half' of research being bad is simply ridiculous and baseless. By the way, the Lancet is a medical, not scientific journals to be strictly accurate about it.....
> 
> The reliability of science can always be improved, but it is improved by the sientists themselves - the very people you're attacking. So your analysis, at least for me, makes no sense.


Taken from the article..

**"The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness."*

**"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. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine"*

*There is much more than anecdotal evidence to support these claims, however, including documents obtained by Lucija Tomljenovic, PhD, from the Neural Dynamics Research Group in the Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences at the University of British Columbia, which reveal that vaccine manufacturers, pharmaceutical companies, and health authorities have known about multiple dangers associated with vaccines but chose to withhold them from the public. This is scientific fraud, and their complicity suggests that this practice continues to this day.

End of excerpts...

Sorry Dr B but it's a fact that there's a lot of corruption, bias and lies within the medical science sector whether you're willing to admit it or not.. Don't have a go at me for bringing this article and these facts to everyone's attention. If you have any problems with what's stated in the article maybe you could contact Dr Horton and have it out with him? If I put a slant you don't like on anything that's stated, I'm sorry, but maybe that comes from a place inside me that's disappointed and disillusioned about the power, corruption and lies within the medical science sector? No-one likes to be lied to you know...

I have no idea what you mean about me completely misunderstanding.. In your opinion, what is it I've misunderstood?


----------



## Dr B (Apr 23, 2014)

Nup....you still dont understand it. These are not 'facts'. Sorry, you're dead wrong about this. You are making a host of logical fallacies here. You're confusing scientific and medical research for one thing and trying to tar everything with one brush. This is not a healthy way to think our reason. You're also just cherry picking what you want to fit your pre-existing philosophy. I dont buy the article or your interpretation of it. It is NOT fact.


----------



## Zed (Jul 25, 2015)

^^ Ohh of course, anything that goes against your beliefs is NOT fact.

We've heard all this before from you. You distract people away from the original intention (which is to show that scientific research is biased, corrupt, flawed, lies)...

Surprise surprise!!

Your opinion is heavily biased in this field.. you're not worth listening to.


----------

