[HN Gopher] Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials ___________________________________________________________________ Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials Author : headalgorithm Score : 278 points Date : 2023-07-18 11:27 UTC (11 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.nature.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.nature.com) | Eumenes wrote: | The over prescription of statins is a great example of what | pharma sponsored clinical trials result in | epistasis wrote: | For your comment to make sense to me, you are saying that the | pharma sponsored clinical trials are untrustworthy data? | | I've not heard that claim but am interested. Overprescripton | certainly doesn't require that the trials were bad in any way. | | And I'm also curious about this idea of overprescription, | because I hear it sometimes from extremely political people but | have never heard it from scientists (and scientists are always | trying to find some way to critique current practice, so that | statins don't rise to that level is a surprise to me). | remote_phone wrote: | This. Statins claimed to be free from adverse reactions, but it | turns out that about 30% of the participants were taken out of | their clinical study because of "non-compliance". However, if | you dig in further, the non-compliance was because of adverse | reactions. | | You can't trust pharma companies if their data is secret. | nradov wrote: | That is medical misinformation. No drug company ever claimed | that their statins were free from adverse effects. There are | many statins on the market now, and patients who experience | bad side effects from one will often do well on another. | Getting the treatment right is a trial and error process. | | https://peterattiamd.com/why-a-recent-study-hasnt-shaken- | my-... | anonuser123456 wrote: | If you dig further into those adverse reactions, you'll find | they are approximately equal to adverse reactions of placebo. | Madmallard wrote: | Except for the part where there is a clear mechanism and | cause related to muscle damage and cellular dysfunction. | TheBigSalad wrote: | There must be more to it. Everyone who drops out is | scrutinized. | obblekk wrote: | There should be Nutrition Facts but for scientific trials. | Independent agency just publishing quality assessments of the | trial. | | This should be an async non blocking evaluation. The | statisticians who do it should be anonymous by default. There | should be an appeals process for a scientist to explain why an | unconventional new method is actually robust. | | There should not be a single number published by this process, | but rather a list of stats that speak to the overall quality of | the trial on many dimensions (power, sources of bias, etc). | | Only information that would not be the same on 99% of trials | should be written on this label (no sec style everything is a | risk word vomit disclosures). | | There should not be a pre-emptive application for a label - it | can only be gotten after paper submission to reduce gaming. | | There should be an independent advisory org that scientists can | literally call to ask for advice on structuring the trials. These | calls must not be disclosed. Much like farmers can call the | government to ask for help on xyz crop problem. | | And these labels should never be used as the primary source of | punishment. Any and all sanctions/penalties/dismissals must go | through a new review process done by a different group. | | Any scientist who gets a label in a particular year should be | given a vote to review the review agency on several dimensions. | These aggregate reviews should be published broadly but not | trigger any automatic consequences. | | Clear, accessible information is the basis for any self | regulating human system. We need more of it in this field. | mike_hearn wrote: | There's the Cochrane Collaboration. They don't tick off every | item on your list but it's fairly close to what you're asking | for. It's mentioned in the article as they do a lot of meta- | studies. Unfortunately they only started trying to spot | fraudulent RCTs in 2021. Also in recent times some people don't | like them, because they did a big review of mask studies and | found there was no reliable evidence that masks worked against | COVID. | | _Cochrane (formerly known as the Cochrane Collaboration) is a | British international charitable organisation formed to | organise medical research findings to facilitate evidence-based | choices about health interventions involving health | professionals, patients and policy makers.[4][5] It includes 53 | review groups that are based at research institutions | worldwide. Cochrane has approximately 30,000 volunteer experts | from around the world.[6] | | The group conducts systematic reviews of health-care | interventions and diagnostic tests and publishes them in the | Cochrane Library.[7][4]_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cochrane_(organisation) | camelite wrote: | "Many commentators have claimed that a recently-updated | Cochrane Review shows that 'masks don't work', which is an | inaccurate and misleading interpretation." | | https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical- | interventio... | mike_hearn wrote: | Next sentence: _" It would be accurate to say that the | review examined whether interventions to promote mask | wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, and | that the results were inconclusive."_ | | ... which is what I just said: some people got mad at them | because their review found no reliable evidence that | masking worked (or rather, that mask mandates worked, but | these are virtually the same thing). | | The null hypothesis for any medical intervention is that it | has no effect. You start from that and then try to prove | your hypothesis that it does have an effect, which is what | medical studies are for. If you can't prove something works | then we fall back to the null and assume it doesn't. So | that isn't a misleading or inaccurate interpretation of the | results, though it would certainly have been politically | convenient for the Cochrane organization if their reviewers | could have supported the claims of public health | authorities. | chowells wrote: | That sentence doesn't say what you think it says. It says | "interventions to promote mask wearing". That's not mask | wearing, it's telling people to wear masks. It is both | true that wearing masks helps and that it's hard to tell | if promoting mask-wearing changed enough behavior to | matter. Mostly, those interventions do nothing. | krona wrote: | That's an ambiguous sentence. The main results of the | study conclude: | | _Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or | no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness | (ILI) /COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing | masks (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) | 0.84 to 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate- | certainty evidence._ | | Which I think is definitive. | renaudg wrote: | _The original Plain Language Summary for this review | stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or | N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of | respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' | This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we | apologize._ | fzeroracer wrote: | > ... which is what I just said: some people got mad at | them because their review found no reliable evidence that | masking worked (or rather, that mask mandates worked, but | these are virtually the same thing). | | This is not virtually the same thing. Comparing those two | is wildly disingenuous and you know it. | renaudg wrote: | > no reliable evidence that masking worked(or rather, | that mask mandates worked, but these are virtually the | same thing). | | No it's not the same thing, and that's the key point. If | you tell people that masking doesn't work (which is | false) then of course mask mandates won't work because | adherence will be low. A self-fulfilling prophecy really. | mike_hearn wrote: | Compliance for COVID mask mandates was measured and found | to be extremely high, especially at the start (>95%). | These mandates were enforced by harsh penalties so high | compliance levels is no surprise. Thus you can't argue | mask mandates didn't work because of low compliance. | | Also health authorities told people masks were highly | effective. That's what justified the mandates. So you | can't argue mask mandates didn't work because people were | told it wouldn't work. | | Therefore there's no self fulfilling prophecy here. It | didn't even matter what individuals thought anyway, we | all had to wear masks. | | Although Cochrane much prefers to use RCTs, people have | run regressions over the data and there was no link | between levels of mask wearing and infection rates. It | sucks but it appears that masks just can't stop | aerosolized virus, which spreads like a gas. They aren't | designed to do that so it's no knock against the | manufacturers, who in some cases explicitly warned people | that their products would be useless for that purpose (ht | tps://pbs.twimg.com/media/EfNmzptXkAEg9Od?format=jpg&name | =...). | [deleted] | krona wrote: | Yes because a null hypothesis cannot be proven. Basic | science. | dekhn wrote: | Nothing can be proven in science- only in math. | renaudg wrote: | > they did a big review of mask studies and found there was | no reliable evidence that masks worked against COVID. | | No, that was a misinterpretation of the review in the Covid- | skeptic sphere. Cochrane have had to issue a statement to | clarify : https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical- | interventio... | | tl;dr : half of the people given masks in these studies | didn't wear them consistently or at all, dragging efficacy | results down. | Izkata wrote: | That link agrees with what GP actually said: "no reliable | evidence". | BoringSalad637 wrote: | Also, while _this study_ was inconclusive as to whether | masks help prevent covid, it doesn 't mean that _all | studies_ are inconclusive. | | For example, | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8768005/ is "a | detailed performance evaluation of the mask is studied from | an engineering point of view," which aim to look at how the | _physics_ of N95 masks hold up against covid. What the | _physics_ shows is that N95 filtration helps block covid | particles. | readthenotes1 wrote: | I'm mass transit where masks will required, most of the | people wore the masks covering their chin. I believe the | research is accurate and that saying that masking up more | people doesn't work because they won't wear them properly | db48x wrote: | Which is actually good proof that _requiring_ people to | wear masks doesn't help. Mask mandates are pointless even | when masks are useful. | callalex wrote: | By that logic why make any laws? Why make murder illegal | if some people are going to kill anyways? | readthenotes1 wrote: | That is why we have police officers to try to stop the | people who have proven they are willing to murder. | | Do you want to be the person going around policing mask | wearing? | lesuorac wrote: | Well depends on who you ask. | | I generally think laws should be codifications of | societal norms. Which also implies that as societal norms | change so should laws. | | So even things such as murder which people do and we | don't want should be codified as illegal. But even if | nobody committed murder anymore it should still be | illegal as its against societal norms. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Three points. | | First, some laws probably don't have any positive impact. | | Second, there's a difference between accurately | summarizing trial results and extrapolating that to the | impact of a new law. If there was a death penalty for not | wearing masks, perhaps compliance would be better than in | the trials and an effect would be shown. This doesn't | mean that the trial analysis is wrong, you just can't | draw a conclusion about the law from the trial data. | | Third, laws have multiple purposes including Justice and | Punishment. Some murderers might have zero chance of re- | offending but we still want to punish them as a matter of | Justice, not because it makes Society safer. | concordDance wrote: | Presumably less people kill in that case. | t0bia_s wrote: | Would you kill of that would be legal? | penultimatename wrote: | [flagged] | timr wrote: | > that was a misinterpretation of the review in the Covid- | skeptic sphere. | | No, it wasn't. You should read the paper itself, instead of | relying on (sadly) biased editorials about the paper. It | _literally says_ what the OP wrote: | | > Wearing masks in the community probably makes little or | no difference to the outcome of influenza-like illness | (ILI)/COVID-19 like illness compared to not wearing masks | (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.84 to | 1.09; 9 trials, 276,917 participants; moderate-certainty | evidence. Wearing masks in the community probably makes | little or no difference to the outcome of laboratory- | confirmed influenza/SARS-CoV-2 compared to not wearing | masks (RR 1.01, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.42; 6 trials, 13,919 | participants; moderate-certainty evidence) | | The only place they found any plausible signal was | comparing N95 respirators against surgical masks, but the | evidence was extremely weak: | | > We pooled trials comparing N95/P2 respirators with | medical/surgical masks (four in healthcare settings and one | in a household setting). We are very uncertain on the | effects of N95/P2 respirators compared with | medical/surgical masks on the outcome of clinical | respiratory illness (RR 0.70, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.10; 3 | trials, 7779 participants; very low-certainty evidence). | N95/P2 respirators compared with medical/surgical masks may | be effective for ILI (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.03; 5 | trials, 8407 participants; low-certainty evidence). | Evidence is limited by imprecision and heterogeneity for | these subjective outcomes. The use of a N95/P2 respirators | compared to medical/surgical masks probably makes little or | no difference for the objective and more precise outcome of | laboratory-confirmed influenza infection (RR 1.10, 95% CI | 0.90 to 1.34; 5 trials, 8407 participants; moderate- | certainty evidence). | | The editorial you cited was a low point in the history of | Cochrane, where they gave in to public outrage and | attempted to cast doubt on their own data. | | https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.C | D... | classichasclass wrote: | From the editorial: "It would be accurate to say that the | review examined whether interventions to promote mask | wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses, | and that the results were inconclusive. Given the | limitations in the primary evidence, the review is not | able to address the question of whether mask-wearing | itself reduces people's risk of contracting or spreading | respiratory viruses." | | Whether you think the editorial was them caving or not, | they also issued it under their own name with the same | weight as their other reviews, so they must have thought | enough of it to do so. | | Given that there's ample laboratory evidence of the | filtering capacity of a good N95 or even a KN95 mask, and | having worked with an N95 respirator in tuberculosis | control settings for 17 years and never converted my TB | test, I think I'll stick with the mask in future and I | have no hesitation recommending winter masking to others | who believe they are at risk of complications. | | I've liked not being sick for the last three years. | mike_hearn wrote: | The review found very few studies into the effectiveness | of N95/respirators against ILIs, and from those studies | they concluded "wearing N95/P2 respirators probably makes | little to no difference". | | Bear in mind a possible source of confusion here: TB | bacterium are ~3 microns in size, but viruses are about | 0.2 microns. The Cochrane review I mentioned is only | about respiratory viruses. So it's possible that they may | work against TB but not against flu or COVID. | classichasclass wrote: | I'm pretty aware of how large a TB bacillus is, thanks. | | The NIOSH definition for an N95 is a device able to | filter at least 95% of airborne particles that have a | mass median aerodynamic diameter of 0.3 micrometers. | While SARS-CoV-2 is around 0.1 microns in size, naked | COVID-19 viruses in air are rare as they would be torn up | nearly immediately, so they are almost always within | aerosols. Typical respiratory aerosol range is around | half a micron or so [0], and as the aerosol particle size | gets smaller, so necessarily must be the amount of virus | that is present. | | Is this perfect filtration? No, but no one gets sick from | a single virus they inhaled either, even with as | communicable as the current Omicron variants are. There's | a minimum infective dose and they help keep exposure | under it. | | [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/s43856-022-00103-w | vibrio wrote: | The size of the single virus is a false metric here. | There is a wide range of respiratory droplets containing | virions. Those droplets can range from visible (way | bigger than a mycobacterium ) to only large enough to | hold one virion. The size distribution of those particles | is the metric. | timr wrote: | > they also issued it under their own name with the same | weight as their other reviews, so they must have thought | enough of it to do so. | | Data is data. Editorials are editorials. The fact that | they're published on the same website doesn't change the | data. If the Higgs boson was published in the same issue | of Physics Letters B as another letter that claimed | uncertainty of the result, would you treat them with | equal weight? | | > and having worked with an N95 respirator in | tuberculosis control settings for 17 years and never | converted my TB test | | I mean...that's fine? Nobody is telling you what to | believe or do. Most of what we do comes without evidence. | But let's be _slightly_ rigorous thinkers for a moment: | there 's a fairly obvious difference between a fit-tested | n95 mask in a laboratory setting, where there are _lots | of other interventions happening at the same time_ | (negative pressure labs, hoods, etc.), and putting on a | loose surgical mask on a bus. We should be able to talk | about that rationally, and not resort to superstition. | | > I've liked not being sick for the last three years. | | I haven't worn masks and I haven't gotten sick either. | Other than Covid -- which I got when we were all wearing | masks. | | "post hoc, ergo propter hoc." | classichasclass wrote: | That's drawing an unnecessarily sharp description. To a | first approximation all Cochrane pieces are editorials. | They're interpreting what's actually out there. | | > But let's be slightly rigorous thinkers for a moment: | there's a fairly obvious difference between a fit-tested | n95 mask in a laboratory setting, where there are lots of | other interventions happening at the same time (negative | pressure labs, hoods, etc.), and putting on a loose | surgical mask on a bus. We should be able to talk about | that rationally, and not resort to superstition. | | No one's resorting to superstition. You're the one saying | there's no value in an intervention that has empiric | laboratory evidence to support it. The argument here is | what matters at the population level. If the problem is | performance, then we train people to select and use masks | better, not simply say that there's no point to it at | all. | PathOfEclipse wrote: | Seriously, what's the difference between what OP wrote: | | " [Cochrane] found there was no reliable evidence that | masks worked against COVID/" | | And the editorial: "the review examined whether | interventions to promote mask wearing help to slow the | spread of respiratory viruses, and that the results were | inconclusive" | | How is "inconclusive" functionally different from "there | was no reliable evidence?" Seriously, how do you justify | this pedantry while ignoring and obfuscating the truth? | | People do much evil by focusing on the wrong facts, the | wrong stories, and the wrong lessons learned, while | ignoring the right ones. That you are willing to focus on | apparently frivolous pedantry while ignoring the fact | that so many were forced to use masks without any high- | quality scientific evidence that they actually did | anything, including children, and all the lessons that | should derive from this, is in my opinion, very | representative of this type of evil. | CorrectHorseBat wrote: | It's not "inconclusive" and "there was no reliable | evidence" that are different, it's the promoting part | that makes them completely different. | | "We found no reliable evidence that abstinence prevents | teen pregnancy" | | "We examined whether promoting abstinence prevents teen | pregnancy and the results were inconclusive" | | The first is obviously wrong, and if the the second is | true it would mean the government should look for other | ways to prevent teen pregnancy, but it wouldn't mean that | practicing abstinence as an individual doesn't work to | prevent pregnancy. | NoPie wrote: | Cochrane review doesn't make this distinction. | | In medicine you cannot distinguish. It is all about the | intervention and not about some theoretical best-case | scenario. | | The intervention is to ask people to wear masks. People | comply as they do in real real life and then we measure | the results. There was no reliable evidence that this | made any noticeable difference. | | Now you can change the intervention - instead of asking | and mandating masks as we did, we could educate masks | wearers more. Unfortunately we have no evidence that it | helps. | | Perhaps masking could help to an individual wearer? Alas, | we didn't collect such evidence either. | | Some studies are lab based. In those masks had some | effect. But that's not how people use masks in real life, | so these results don't mean much. | autoexec wrote: | > But that's not how people use masks in real life, so | they don't mean much. | | I think saying "Using X is effective, but only if you | actually use X" is obvious. The thing people want to know | is "do masks stop the virus" which is an entirely | different question from "How many people will wear | masks", which is a different question from "What is the | effectiveness of interventions to promote mask wearing" | NoPie wrote: | The first question is pointless for someone responsible | for public health. People want the answer to it because | they don't want to think about all these related issues | and have simplistic idea that they can protect | themselves. But chances are their compliance is exactly | the same as among people in those studies. | | Therefore the real question is how effective is the | intervention. It will be (or should be) asked by people | responsible with public health policies. | | P.S. Cochrane group is not for giving scientific answers | to individual people. Its main aim is to evaluate the | evidence of different treatments and provide guidance to | policy makers and healthcare authorities. | autoexec wrote: | If you are responsible for public health and the answer | to the first question is "no" then you have no need to | ask the other two. Figuring out what we can do to get | people to do what works is important too, but it's not | the only thing that matters. People can be educated and | their habits changed. | | We have similar problems getting schizophrenics to take | their meds and getting communities with high rates of | open defecation to use toilets, but nobody suggests that | we give up on antipsychotics or sanitation facilities. | NoPie wrote: | The first answer is too vague to have a meaningful answer | in case. | | Every other treatment in medicine including schizophrenia | is tested how it works in practice. It is incurable | disease and the treatments have many side-effects. Thus | the question becomes not "does this medicine cure | schizophrenia" but "does this treatment works better than | placebo or another treatment?". When studies are | completed, we gather evidence by monitoring real life | experience with this treatment. | autoexec wrote: | > Every other treatment in medicine including | schizophrenia is tested how it works in practice. | | Medicine is tested according to how it works when people | actually take it. People participating in research | studies who fail to take their medications (or their | placebo for that matter) are kicked from the program and | their data is typically discarded entirely. | NoPie wrote: | That is generally not true. | | In fact, often clinical trials are statistically analysed | by intention-to-treat, including all people who have been | randomised even if they later don't receive the | treatment. | | Per-protocol-analysis (including only people who follow | the study protocol) can also be used but it is more prone | to bias. | | Besides, with masks it is not simply wearing or not | wearing a mask. Even a very diligent mask wearers may | wear it in a way that makes it less effective without | being aware of that. | | In short, when the doctor prescribes a medicine it is | important to understand the factors why the patient may | not take the medicine as prescribed. If the real life | situation is that most people take medicine in a way that | makes it ineffective and so much that the clinical trial | cannot find significant effect, then he shouldn't | prescribe it. It is just a waste of resources and giving | people false hopes. | timr wrote: | > > "We found no reliable evidence that abstinence | prevents teen pregnancy" | | > > "We examined whether promoting abstinence prevents | teen pregnancy and the results were inconclusive" | | > The first is obviously wrong, | | No. They're equivalent. They both mean "we looked, and we | didn't find any confirming evidence." You're confusing | "we found no reliable evidence of X" with "we found | evidence of NOT X", which is different, and essentially | _never_ achievable in empirical studies (note: this is | not an invitation to get side-tracked in pedantic debates | about proving the null; I 'm telling you how actual | randomized controlled trials work, in real life.) | | Proving a negative via statistics is ~impossible, so what | you do instead is to look for significant differences in | X, attributable solely or partially to the intervention. | If you _don 't_ find such a difference (as was the case | in the mask review), you say "we found no reliable | evidence of X". | | But when the Cochrane authors wrote _" Wearing masks in | the community probably makes little or no difference to | the outcome of influenza-like illness"_, they really did | mean exactly what it sounds like -- the effect size in an | aggregated pool of randomized controlled trials was | _statistically indistinguishable from zero._ You can | debate whether or not they looked for the right thing | (X), you can debate whether or not adding another big | randomized trial would help find X, and so on. But the | plain-text interpretation is correct. | sfn42 wrote: | We may not be sure that masks help, but we're completely | sure that they don't hurt so I don't see the problem | personally. | Mountain_Skies wrote: | Absolutely false. There are lots of negatives to mask | wearing, starting with inducing developmental problems in | children and continuing on with massive increases in long | lasting trash and then into more speculative issues with | breathing. It's not a harmless activity. | dllthomas wrote: | I'm completely sure masks hurt my pocketbook and my | ability to keep my car tidy, and that _forcing_ people to | mask has additional costs. There are cost /benefit | questions that aren't as trivial as you imply, and they | should be made based on reliable data. | hdior wrote: | [dead] | classichasclass wrote: | "Many were forced" != "there's no value" | ecuaflo wrote: | I'm reading these as completely different. | | The latter sounds like advertising and education about | masks rather than wearing the masks themselves. ie | telling people to wear masks made no difference in spread | probably because people's minds were already made up | about masking. | | I din't see it making any conclusion about masking itself | LorenPechtel wrote: | Yup, we lead lives where it's simply not that big an | issue to protect ourselves. While I think my chance of | dying from getting it would be very low the issue of long | term damage is another matter--it certainly looks to me | like it damages everybody, just not always to the point | they notice. The damage is probably cumulative. | autoexec wrote: | It also literally says "The high risk of bias in the | trials, variation in outcome measurement, and relatively | low adherence with the interventions during the studies | hampers drawing firm conclusions." | timr wrote: | It does, and that's true, but that doesn't contradict | what OP wrote. | | They found only mid-to-low quality evidence supporting | the use of masks to prevent ILI. That evidence, for | everything but the question of "n95 vs. other", showed an | effect size _statistically indistinguishable from zero._ | | You're essentially saying that the error bars on that | effect size are big. They are. But they're still centered | on zero. | autoexec wrote: | The evidence they had was of such low quality that no | solid conclusions could be made from it. What they found | in the research may not reflect reality. They are | explicit about this and stress the need for better | research. | | > "There is uncertainty about the effects of face masks. | The low to moderate certainty of evidence means our | confidence in the effect estimate is limited, and that | _the true effect may be different from the observed | estimate of the effect_...There is a need for large, | well-designed RCTs addressing the effectiveness of many | of these interventions in multiple settings and | populations, as well as the impact of adherence on | effectiveness, especially in those most at risk of ARIs. | " | | They admit that they were unclear about it and later were | even more explicit. | | "Given the limitations in the primary evidence, the | review is not able to address the question of whether | mask-wearing itself reduces people's risk of contracting | or spreading respiratory viruses." | | The review is not able to "address the question" let | alone conclude _anything_ about the impact of mask | wearing. The review is inconclusive. | LorenPechtel wrote: | The basic problem is whether the data says masks don't | work, or says that people aren't consistent enough in | wearing masks. | | I've seen it directly--one woman putting on a mask when I | approached. The thing is she had been hiking near the | back of the pack in a group that got together for the | hike. She was at a far higher risk from being downwind of | her group (this was not a family bubble) than of me being | off to the side. | | I can basically guarantee nobody there was experiencing | any appreciable symptoms (10,000' up, miles from the cars | --not something you're doing with any sort of respiratory | infection) but most Covid spread is presymptomatic. | | A solo hiker masking when someone approaches makes sense | (and is what I did pre-vaccine), but not masking with | your group but masking for a stranger? That's merely an | illusion of safety and why masks "don't work". | | There's also the problem that the Cochrane data included | mostly studies of things other than Covid--when you go | over their own data only looking at Covid you do see some | benefit. Note, also, the pooling of masks and respirators | --we already know masks do little against the Omicron | variants. Respirators or don't bother. | | Cochrane messed up badly in this case by looking at the | wrong thing. I'm reminded of the BMJ study showing zero | safety benefit from parachutes when jumping from an | airplane. | peyton wrote: | I would like to point out what "makes sense" to people | rarely reflects the underlying fluid dynamics at the | relevant scales. Couple that with a poor understanding of | just how many particles one infected person emits and | it's clear masks as worn are very ineffective for the | vast majority of people. | anonymous344 wrote: | Yes, the masks didn't work. Now everybody should know it. | First of all, they were using paper mouth shields or | adidas branded useless cloths, not masks. But even the | dumb fcks using real n95 mask, i see people everywhere | touching the mask from outside (where the viruses should | be stopped if the mask works) and then touching | everything else. And when coughing opening the mask and | coughing inside the palm... | chaxor wrote: | This is important to point out. | | I was actually surprised by the mouthwash outcomes as well. | Almost no one really talked about mouthwash, but it looked | to be useful in the study. | bena wrote: | Mouthwash is typically alcohol based. Alcohol is a pretty | good disinfectant in general. | | But it's efficacy will really only be decent while it's | in your mouth. Once it gets diluted past a certain point, | it's not going to be doing anything. You'd probably have | similar results with vodka. | autoexec wrote: | I know doctors who recommended drinking whiskey early in | the pandemic for that reason (and also the usual reasons | people dealing with trauma reach for whiskey) | specialist wrote: | > _Also in recent times some people don 't like them, because | they did a big review of mask studies and found there was no | reliable evidence that masks worked against COVID._ | | Oh. | | I quickly found this: | | "The new scientific review on masks and Covid isn't what you | think" Kelsey Piper | | https://www.vox.com/future- | perfect/2023/2/22/23609499/masks-... | | Based on the criticisms, I expect Cochrane will revisit this | topic. | | Progress isn't a straight line. | epistasis wrote: | If science is going to be "self-correcting" then it has to | make mistakes in the first place. | | These mistakes will happen from the original scientists, | they will happen at the stage of editorial boards, they | will happen at peer review, they will happen if external | third parties start systematically reviewing every RCT. | | So Cochran must similarly be scrutinized for their errors, | because they will be making them as well. | | And that's even before we get to the political factors | outside of science misinterpreting complex data for their | own purposes... | specialist wrote: | Yes and: | | It's wicked hard just to get reproducible results (one | facet of the replication crisis). Much less the | challenges you list. | | Confusion and miscommunication is the norm. Rising above | that takes Real Effort(tm). | | One of my formative experiences was on a team trying to | adopt the processes from the book Applying Use Cases. So | simple. Like a recipe. Really, what could be more simple? | | We had shared purpose. We all read the book (among | others). We discussed. We all thought we were good to go. | | And then the wheels fell off once real work started. | Turns out we didn't agree. On anything. What is "the | system"? What level of abstraction are we working at? | What does this line (points at diagram) here mean? | | Writing this now, experiencing PTSD flashbacks, I can | confidently say I would have never succeeded as a | scientist. | b59831 wrote: | Vox is an awful source. | tapland wrote: | In this case it's the source of nothing more than an | explanation of the study which we are already discussing. | sfn42 wrote: | "An explanation" can be wildly misleading. | | For example i might "explain" to you that clean code is | about writing the least amount of code possible and you | might start code golfing your production systems. | | If you want to know what the paper says, read the paper. | Journalists are not scientists, most of them do not have | the necessary knowledge to understand academic papers, | nor do they have an incentive for doing it well. They do | have an incentive for generating clicks though, generally | by twisting the truth to make things sound more | interesting or provoking than they are. | mike_hearn wrote: | Cochrane revisit topics from time to time to update their | reviews as new studies appear. The question of mask | effectiveness was reviewed in the past also. There's an | interview with one of the authors of this round's review | here: | | https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/06/dr-carl-heneghan- | intervi... | | _So, a Cochrane review is a study which synthesises all | available studies - all that we can find or identity - on a | particular topic. It follows a highly structured format and | is always preceded by publication of a protocol. All this | is to minimise the bias. Also, it is extensively | transparent. In this case we are looking at about 300 pages | of review. Now, the review called "Physical interventions | to interrupt or reduce the spread of respiratory viruses" | is called in code A122 for short and I will be using that | acronym simply because it is just too long a title. So the | protocol was first published in 2006 and then the first | version was published in 2007, updated in 2009, 2010, 2011, | and then 2020, so this 2023 is the fifth update of this | review. And the reason why we update the reviews is they | are soon out of date if we don't do that, especially in | some fast moving topics._ | | This update didn't change the conclusions from any of the | prior reviews. | | Because masks are so politicized there were numerous | attacks on Cochrane this time around, though nobody cared | in any of the previous rounds. The Cochrane authors are | aware of all the criticisms, but there were no | justifications found in any of them to alter the | conclusions of the review or their procedures for doing | them. | specialist wrote: | > _This update didn 't change the conclusions from any of | the prior reviews. ... The Cochrane authors are aware of | all the criticisms, but there were no justifications | found in any of them to alter the conclusions of the | review or their procedures for doing them._ | | True. But as noted elsethread, Cochrane is not | responsible for others misinterpreting the conclusions. | | "Statement on 'Physical interventions to interrupt or | reduce the spread of respiratory viruses' review" | https://www.cochrane.org/news/statement-physical- | interventio... | | _" The original Plain Language Summary for this review | stated that 'We are uncertain whether wearing masks or | N95/P2 respirators helps to slow the spread of | respiratory viruses based on the studies we assessed.' | This wording was open to misinterpretation, for which we | apologize. While scientific evidence is never immune to | misinterpretation, we take responsibility for not making | the wording clearer from the outset. We are engaging with | the review authors with the aim of updating the Plain | Language Summary and abstract to make clear that the | review looked at whether interventions to promote mask | wearing help to slow the spread of respiratory viruses."_ | | > _masks are so politicized_ | | Indeed. | claytongulick wrote: | Vox? I would recommend seeking elsewhere for truth. | | For example, after parsing through the ad hominem attacks | and nonsense in that article, their main point is that the | Bangladesh study found masks to be effective. | | Except that study is junk and all the reported effects were | found to be a result of researcher bias [1]. | | Vox also misrepresents the Danish study, which is probably | the best study to date we have on masking effectiveness. | | > Progress isn't a straight line. | | Yes, but truth is most likely to be found in whatever facts | are orthogonal to vox' narrative. | | [1] https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.118 | 6/s13... | specialist wrote: | > _parsing through the ad hominem attacks_ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem | | > "Re-analysis on the statistical sampling biases of a | mask promotion trial in Bangladesh: a statistical | replication" | | I'm not remotely qualified to have an opinion. | | That said... | | The open (public) process as well as the critics sharing | their source code is just awesome. | | https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/ | s13... | | https://github.com/mchikina/maskRCTnote | | I share the reviewer's hope that authors of the original | study will respond. | [deleted] | jonlucc wrote: | Why would the statisticians be anonymous? I'm aware of at least | a couple cases in which an independent set of statisticians | were provided the data from a clinical trial specifically for a | re-analysis. In one case, they showed some pretty concerning | inconsistencies and the other confirmed no effect on the | primary analysis, but suggested some sub-populations that might | have shown an effect if a future study was properly powered. | That follow-up clinical trial was just published showing pretty | remarkable effect in the sub-population. I don't think there's | reason to believe either independent analysis was anything | other than independent. | | There is already a mechanism for companies to submit questions | to the FDA prior to clinical trial initiation. I'm not in these | conversations, but I know the type of questions can be things | like: would you accept this endpoint as a proxy for this | indication, would you be satisfied with the effect size we | expect, and are there other safety concerns you would expect us | to evaluate other than those in our current plan. I assume EMA | and other regulatory bodies have a similar process, but I'm not | positive. | | Disclaimer: I work in pharma, but pre-clinically. I am not | involved in these clinical or regulatory issues. | obblekk wrote: | So junior scientists can be hired without them being | concerned for future career prospects. | alphazard wrote: | The success of the Nutrition Facts labeling does not get enough | publicity. | | Rather than outlawing certain ingredients, or creating some | kind of health score which a product must be above, Nutrition | Facts is a way for suppliers to attest to information about a | product in way that is legally binding. If it isn't accurate | the penalties are steep. | | Consumers then have the information they need to vote with | their wallets. Markets cannot function properly without | symmetric information, and Nutrition Facts essentially creates | a functioning market where one did not exist previously. | | Any effort to regulate what's in food would probably be better | spent expanding what must be in the Nutrition Facts label. I | guess it's nice that we are finally getting around to banning | artificial trans fats, but anyone who can read has been able to | keep those out of their diet for years. The same can be said | about the next bad ingredient, and the one after that. | taeric wrote: | This isn't without downsides, of course. The case of | manufacturers adding allergens to food deliberately is | alarming in its own way. | hermitdev wrote: | Surely, you aren't complaining of peanuts in peanut butter, | so can you share an example, and why the allergen | presumably shouldn't be there? | hguant wrote: | The penalty for having an allergen present is steep, and | the process of certifying that yes, you are in fact | allergen free, is expensive and difficult, while the cost | of adding an allergen into your process, for pretty much | any foodstuff, is cheap, and the cost of slapping a "may | contain peanuts" label on is cheaper. | | I believe the original comment was complaining about the | perverse incentive there. | Ekaros wrote: | And if may contain is not enough or allowed, may as well | throw some amount of peanuts in and list it. And cover | all the bases. | LorenPechtel wrote: | No, we are complaining about the way the government | handles allergen labeling. | | It used to be that companies could slap a "may contain | [allergen]" label on things that didn't contain it but | were produced in a factory where cross contamination was | a possibility. Such labels are *widespread*. | | I don't understand the government's incentive in trying | to stop this--the actual result was when cross | contamination was a possibility the companies reacted by | deliberately adding the offending material. | | The problem is that it's being looked at in a binary | sense. Either it contains the offending material and | poses a danger to those affected, or it doesn't and is | safe. However, in the real world there's a third | population--those who are sensitive to the offending | ingredient but not dangerously so. Possibility of cross | contamination? That is not going to be a deterrent to me | as the worst case outcome is merely unpleasant. Does | contain? I'm going to treat it with great skepticism. | taeric wrote: | Apologies, I should have included a link. I am referring | to https://apnews.com/article/sesame-allergies- | label-b28f8eb3dc.... | | Mayhap that is overblown? I confess I have not followed | it too heavily. Very thankful that I am not allergic to | anything in my adult life. | hermitdev wrote: | I don't have any food allergies, either, so I admittedly | don't pay much attention to allergens (or even listed | ingredients most of the time). I'm genuinely curious, | too. | swsieber wrote: | I had the same questions and found this article: | https://snacksafely.com/2016/06/kelloggs-unintended- | conseque... | | Basically, there were stricter measures put in place | called HARPC. From my linked article: | | > The new directives mandate that the "Top 8 allergens" | identified by FALCPA (peanuts, tree nuts, milk, eggs, | wheat, soy, fish, and crustacean shellfish) must either | be ingredients of the product and identified as such, or | the manufacturer must take extra care (and cost) to | ensure that there is no cross-contact with them. There is | no middle ground or "out" for the manufacturer, which is | why we believe "May contain" type label advisories are | heading for extinction. And that poses a problem, at | least in the short term. | | > companies, when faced with the added burden of | instituting and documenting cross-contact prevention | measures as dictated by HARPC, may instead choose to add | trace amounts of the allergen to the product, as doing so | makes the allergen an ingredient of the product and | obviates the need for preventative cross-contact measures | for that allergen. | | > it means that manufacturers will either take stricter | measures to prevent cross-contact or add a trace amount | of the allergen and list it in the ingredient list, thus | eliminating the ambiguity that currently plagues us all. | | > A compromise that might have avoided the unintended | consequences of companies like Kellogg's adding traces of | allergens to their products is to have offered them a | third option: A mandatory "May contain" label advisory | for any product made on shared equipment or in shared | facilities that did not meet the FSMA threshold for | cross-contact prevention. Such label advisories are | voluntary today, rendering them ambiguous at best, but a | definitively worded and located advisory statement | included on all such products would have provided a way | for manufacturers to meet the requirements of HARPC | without resorting to the addition of allergens. | | So I'd be surprised if it was happening on an ongoing | basis, but I can definitely see why people would be | irked. | kneebonian wrote: | I'll add, a family member has celiac which makes it so they | can't eat gluten. Becoming certified "Gluten Free" requires | a certification process that can be expensive and | difficult. However many companies have realized they can | label their product "Gluten Friendly" and get around the | requirements. It is annoying. | vxNsr wrote: | Interestingly, there is some gaming of the main number | everyone looks at on the nutrition facts chart: calories per | serving. | | All snacks aim to fall at or below a certain number the FDA | (or some other agency) put out as being considered a snack. | Planet Money did an episode on different M&M varieties having | different total weights to account for their different | calorie counts. So you get fewer by weight peanut butter M&Ms | because they're more calorie rich | taeric wrote: | This doesn't sound bad to me? At large, people eat a | package of whatever snack they choose to buy. Also at | large, people assume different packages of snacks should be | roughly comparable for important metrics. And calorie count | is probably up there for important metrics. | [deleted] | csours wrote: | Yes, I have said this as "The UX of [medical] study papers is | terrible". Some people do not agree, they think that it should | not be made easier to understand, that non-experts cannot | really understand medical studies, so they should not be more | approachable. I think that's dead wrong. | p-e-w wrote: | > There should be Nutrition Facts but for scientific trials. | | No, there should be prison time for scientists who conduct | unethical trials or publish fake results. | | The public (and policy makers) place such immense trust in | those people and what they publish that nothing less is even | remotely adequate. | | When someone puts arsenic in food, they go to prison - labeling | the food with "contains arsenic" doesn't cut it. | | Do this and watch science magically fix itself. | ekianjo wrote: | Revoke their license and titles to start with so they cannot | operate anymore in the field | Spinnaker_ wrote: | I would like to see Universities take the lead here. A | bunch of high profile degree revocations would generate | some waves at least. | tcmart14 wrote: | As reasonable as that would be. I feel like it would just | turn into people getting their degrees revoke claiming | 'cancel culture' and becoming gurus with many mindless | followers pushing loose weight quick schemes kind of | thing. Because today if you face consequences, its no | longer your fault, its everyone else trying to cancel you | from doing the bad thing you are doing. | twic wrote: | Which prison? As the article says: | | > Ultimately, a lingering question is -- as with paper mills | -- why so many suspect RCTs are being produced in the first | place. Mol, from his experiences investigating the Egyptian | studies, blames lack of oversight and superficial assessments | that promote academics on the basis of their number of | publications, as well as the lack of stringent checks from | institutions and journals on bad practices. | | A substantial part of what's happening here is that first- | world countries with generally good cultures of research | integrity are basing medical policy on studies done in | countries where the system encourages researchers to cheat. | British and US authorities can't put Egyptian or Chinese | researchers in prison, can they? | p-e-w wrote: | There's no shortage of scientific fraud happening in the | "first world" also. Dealing with those people would be a | good start. | chaxor wrote: | This is the correct answer. Typically if something is | done at an ivy league, other US and UK universities | follow. Perhaps the other countries would follow as well | shortly after that, or there would just be a divide | between 'real' research and 'not', similar to when many | of my friends stop reading after the word 'Hindawi'. | t0bia_s wrote: | - Do this and watch science magically fix itself. | | Imagine same approach in politics. If some politics put lies | in their speeches to manipulate with people, we should call | them liers and put them in prison. But somehow it doesn't | happen. Looks like society prefer conformity over | responsibility. | neaden wrote: | Just to be clear, if you actually did this what you would see | is stuff like Florida locking up every climatologist for | doing "false science". | psychlops wrote: | It wouldn't be limited to Florida. Elsewhere, having any | reasonable questions about the severity regarding the | religion of Climate Change would get one jailed for | blasphemy. | LorenPechtel wrote: | They would have to prove it to a jury. | | I do agree it would be a major deterrent to doing such | research, but as it stands you'll get fired for it anyway | which is a pretty major deterrent. | s1artibartfast wrote: | Im struggling to see the difference between this and the | current FDA process, and think it is 90% the same. | | Drugs have "prescribing information", referred to in industry | as "labeling", which follows a consistent format containing | safety, trial results, side effects, and mechanism of | action.[1] I recommend people read them for drugs they take. | | _This should be an async non blocking evaluation. The | statisticians who do it should be anonymous by default. There | should be an appeals process for a scientist to explain why an | unconventional new method is actually robust._ | | Third party analysis is the main difference here. In the | current state, firms run the analysis for FDA review using | standard practices, and must explain and get approval for any | unconventional methods | | > _There should not be a single number published by this | process, but rather a list of stats that speak to the overall | quality of the trial on many dimensions (power, sources of | bias, etc)._ | | Labeling contains many relevant numbers. Trial sizes, how many | per arm, what was measured, and and final results. Maybe there | could be some squishy qualitative summary, but that seems more | risky. I would rather know that 1 out of 20 patients died than | it got a "2" on the safety scale. | | >Only information that would not be the same on 99% of trials | should be written on this label (no sec style everything is a | risk word vomit disclosures). | | Labeling contains drug specific information. | | _There should not be a pre-emptive application for a label - | it can only be gotten after paper submission to reduce gaming._ | | Drug labeling requires pre-application and and a standard 12 | month review period by the FDA prior approval | | _There should be an independent advisory org that scientists | can literally call to ask for advice on structuring the trials. | These calls must not be disclosed. Much like farmers can call | the government to ask for help on xyz crop problem._ | | The FDA provides advice on structuring trials and acceptable | design, size, power, endpoints. Firms do this by scheduling | calls with FDA staticians and experts. [2] | | _And these labels should never be used as the primary source | of punishment. Any and all sanctions /penalties/dismissals must | go through a new review process done by a different group. _ | | Maybe there is a difference here. I'm not sure what you mean by | punishment? In the current system, The FDA can use the label as | "punishment". The FDA may require addition "black box warnings" | for drugs that are found to have serious side effects (e.g. | high chance of death). They can also pull the label entirely, | meaning the drug can not be sold. | | _Any scientist who gets a label in a particular year should be | given a vote to review the review agency on several dimensions. | These aggregate reviews should be published broadly but not | trigger any automatic consequences._ | | This is basically how it works for medical device labeling in | the EU. There are several "notified bodies" [3] which are | private agencies to review the safety and efficacy. The firm | then takes their mark of approval to the government agency. | | https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2014/20... | https://www.fda.gov/media/72253/download | https://climedo.de/en/blog/list-of-mdr-certified-notified-bo... | obblekk wrote: | The async thing means papers can be published without waiting | for a gov agency to do its review. FDA takes the opposite | approach. | | Generally, reading a paper is much less risky to a person's | health than taking a drug so the differences in review | process add up meaningfully. | dablweb wrote: | Ironic that nature publishes this despite being guilty of | constantly promoting it. | jet_32951 wrote: | Have a look at Derek Lowe's excellent blog [0] to view the depths | of malfeasance, if not outright fraud, in which "studies" are | created. | | [0] https://www.science.org/content/blog-post/fakin-it-modern- | wa... is just his latest in a long string of well-documented | posts. | light_hue_1 wrote: | This is a problem everywhere where the raw data isn't released | (suitably anonymized). | | In cognitive science, psychology, even computer science / ai / | ml, business. | | And the problem with rejected papers getting in somewhere else | while being total garbage is pervasive. I've rejected a lot of | papers because they were mathematically or statistically bogus | only to see them get published elsewhere where reviewers were not | so careful (a few times in Nature and Science). | | We need an open science movement where you must release | everything with your paper. The full pipeline to reconstruct | every single result from the raw data. No hiding data. No hiding | fmri scans. No "our code only runs on our machine". Etc. | v4dok wrote: | I think value-based care is the only real incentive on this. | Otherwise, there is simply no reason for anyone to care enough. | Even the insurers, they found a way to make money by making | sure their premiums factor in these things. In the expense of | the patient. As long as the drug doesn't kill people, who cares | if it works if I make money off it as a pharma? Unfortunately, | value-based care can only be pushed top-down. Patients are not | in a position of power against pharma companies on this matter. | derbOac wrote: | I'm empathetic to what you're suggesting -- I've published on | open science and meta-science specifically, and think open data | should be the default norm. The problem with clinical research, | though, is that it starts running into conflicting | considerations about patient and participant privacy. Even when | people aren't patients per se, the focus often involves | sensitive information. | | You can just say "anonymize it" but that turns out to be more | difficult than it seems initially, especially with many | questions of interest. | | Also, there's often too many opportunities to do science that | is of real public benefit that comes with privacy expectations | attached for all kinds of reasons. Cases where there is | legitimate consented access but an expectation of privacy | without data sharing. | | People have tried to solve this problem in different ways (for | example, methods where someone can analyze data without having | access to it directly) and maybe those solutions will lead to a | good resolution. But they often have problems of their own | (overhead costs associated with providing anonymized remote | data analysis), and don't solve all problems (guarantees of | absolutely restricted access to personal data). | Spinnaker_ wrote: | We wasted decades, billions of dollars, and countless | promising careers due to bad and fraudulent research in areas | such as Alzheimers. | | Whatever the costs and challenges are, they are not nearly as | high as maintaining the status quo. | mydriasis wrote: | More and more it seems that science is being clouded by moneyed | interests and greed. If we can't trust science, what can we | trust? | thechao wrote: | This is just reporting bias. I've worked (on-and-off) in | various scientific fields for ~30; it has always had its bad | actors. (I even helped do the statistics for some!) | | I'd urge you to consider following the situations: 1. | Prescientific inquiry; and, 2. PreFDA food, drug, and medicine. | | Both of those were orders-of-magnitude worse than what we have, | now. Could we do better? Sure! Is it broken? No. | mydriasis wrote: | That brings a bit of hope! | LorenPechtel wrote: | Disagree. Broken isn't a binary--the current system is far | better than what came before, but that doesn't mean there | aren't serious flaws in the current system. | jasmer wrote: | [dead] | [deleted] | isaacremuant wrote: | No. no. This is not permitted. Trust the science or you're an | antivaxer, Trumper, denier, racist, white supremacist. | | Media and gov, or media at the behest of gov (as the twitter | files prove, but it was obvious without them), censored as much | as thet could, everything that went against what they wanted to | push. It wasn't science but security/hygiene theater and it | worked, because people did go along and did turn on their | neighbours who opposed the measures. | | But now we slowly get tidbits of things we can debate again ... | Funny that, but no recognition that the entire lockdown, masks | and vaccine mandate effort + economic destruction and theft (tax | money to corps as "aid") was never a reasonable, logical or | scientific response. It was an authoritarian and corrupt response | of extreme Effectiveness and cynicism. | | But here comes some guy to say "people have always quarantined in | pandemics" or some other disingenuous claim that ignores the | reality of what happened: healthy people denied basic human and | constitutional rights. | LorenPechtel wrote: | The problem here is "healthy people". Covid's real key to | success is the fact that most spread is presymptomatic. It's | the apparently healthy people spreading it! | | And note the lessons of history: | | 1) There will always be those who choose short term economic | interests over safety when the threat isn't absolutely proven. | They'll always close the barn door too late. | | 2) Places that take epidemic/pandemic threats seriously tend to | fare better economically in the long run. | isaacremuant wrote: | No. The problem is that fundamentally, you and people like | you decided that authortiarianism is ok if the gov says | "things are scary" and everyone should suffer the | consequences. No debate allowed. | | The risk profile for people was always ridiculous and you | were never going to contain it once it was widespread, which | it was, but somehow we believed in the rolling "it's just 2 | weeks". | | 1) it wasn't short term. It wasn't safety. Short and long | term you hurt the vulnerable and you helped the rich and | powerful. | | 2) Rich places will keep being richer and poor places poorer, | and when the powers that be decided that enough was enough, | all the concerns of the hypochondriacs suddenly didn't | matter. | | You could tell, if you paid attention, that politicians | weren't afraid after the initial surge, but wanted "the | masses" to be. You even have definite proof in many places, | one of them being UK and number 10. Can't link it now, sorry. | But Google downing Street covid rules or something on that | note and you can probably find a lot. It wasn't limited to | the UK. It was everywhere you looked properly. | | You were scammed and you either were well off and didn't mind | that much or you want to pretend you weren't for your own | mental health. Because the truth is a hard pill to swallow. | OnlyMortal wrote: | To be fair, science is now a "publish or be damned" business. So | many papers are not worthy of publication and, frankly, are of | common knowledge anyway. | | Of course, this is driven by the money backing the research | which, I'm sure, this is why clinical trials in the medical areas | can be of a poor quality. | | People want to keep their jobs. | j-pb wrote: | That and lawyer driven development. | | I have multiple sclerosis, and I never know if a new medication | came out because it's actually better or simply because they | could get a new patent for a slightly modified molecule. | LorenPechtel wrote: | Disagree--you're talking about patent-driven development, not | lawyer-driven development. | egberts1 wrote: | I now know of a few more people who have completely lost both of | their hearing after taking just one Wellburtin-class pill. | | At the time, no mention was made in the pill's warning pamphlet. | | It is still difficult to secure a class-action suit in America. | | Meanwhile, such quality of life would plummet into a silent | world, even if one knew American Sign Language fluently | beforehand, that tidbit can go against the victim in court. | appleflaxen wrote: | If you read the article, the headline is _wildly_ editorialized. | | Whatever. Par for the course in 2023, right? | | But this is _Nature_ , a paragon of scientific literature, | fueling the distrust of medicine. | | There are great reasons to be skeptical of all trials and | strengthen peer review and transparency, but this kind of | headline is editorial malpractice, in my opinion. | twic wrote: | No, not really. The headline says "plagued with", the subhead | says "in some fields, at least one-quarter of clinical trials | might be problematic or even entirely made up", and the article | substantiates that. One quarter of all trials is more than | adequate to plague the whole enterprise, and there isn't a | problem with this headline. | ethanbond wrote: | Ah yes, the greatest of all weasel words: "problematic." | peteradio wrote: | Want to find out what they mean by "problematic"? Read | beyond the subhead.. | notjoemama wrote: | That word has gotten a bad wrap by people on social media | using it without substantiating it, or hiding behind an | excuse of "Google it"; meaning 'I know but you don't so | go educate yourself because I'm subtextually declaring | your opinion invalid by way of your ignorance'. | | We are seemingly in a fifth generation war amongst | ourselves for the prizes of attention and public | acceptance. Or more succinctly, "being right on the | internet". | | What may in fact be the next great filter. :) | bowsamic wrote: | We _should_ be distrustful of medicine, of all science in | general. Ignoring flawed methodologies or inconclusive results | just means it 's no longer science, it's ideology. I'm a | physicist though so perhaps I could be overly jaded about | science and peer review compared to most scientists | dekhn wrote: | You simply can't apply the rules of publication in physics to | medical biology research. Even highly quantitative biology is | noticeably different in terms of standards of proof and | quality of models. | bowsamic wrote: | Are you saying that we should be less distrustful of | medical biology than of physics? I don't see why that | should be so | dekhn wrote: | no, the other way around (obviously?) | bowsamic wrote: | But, that's my point. I'm telling you that you should be | distrustful of physics, so you should be _really_ | distrustful of medical science | dekhn wrote: | I haven't seen any real serious replication problems in | physics that didn't get cleared up, or anything else that | would make me doubt the results. | | I would generalize the statement: assuming a reductive | order of sciences | (medicine->biology->chemistry->physics), if one cannot | trust a layer, it seems even more likely that layers | above it should be trusted even less. | taeric wrote: | Agreed that the headline makes it sound like a strong majority, | when the article isn't nearly as strong on that. | | Still, "Carlisle rejected every zombie trial, but by now, | almost three years later, most have been published in other | journals -- sometimes with different data to those submitted | with the manuscript he had seen. He is writing to journal | editors to alert them, but expects that little will be done." | is concerning. I'm almost afraid to know what the list of | rejected papers covers. | peteradio wrote: | If a quarter of your body was covered in leaches would you | consider yourself plagued by leaches? | taeric wrote: | I mean, fair that "plagued by" is a very vague term that | has no quantifiable meaning. But appeals to emotion to cast | doubt on all studies is frustrating. "Healthy skepticism in | the face of bad studies" would be a great headline and is | accurate. But too much of the skepticism we are exposed to | on a regular basis is not healthy. | lesuorac wrote: | I don't think plagued has ever meant X%. | | You can be the sole person in the world with the Bubonic | Plague and you'll still be plagued by it. Whether or not | untrustworthful clinical trials "cause distress to" [1] | Medicine I don't think is debatable; medicine should be | based on treatments that have reproducible effects or | else people don't get better. | | [1]: https://www.google.com/search?q=define+plagued | taeric wrote: | At an individual level, absolutely. In group dynamics, | though, you avoid things that have the plague. Same as | you avoid things that have rabies. | | Which is part of my point. If you say that "medicine is | plagued" than a natural response is "avoid medicine." | But, that is clearly a nonsensical outcome, all told. | peteradio wrote: | If 1/4 of all studies have fundamental data issues then | that means in some corners we are making medical | decisions based on bunk, that absolutely is a plague. Why | moderate the language to extenuate? | taeric wrote: | Because if 100% of that 1/4 of studies is all in, say, | homeopathy, that gives a very different action plan than | if it is a random sampling of all studies. | | Still bad, mind you, but unfocused skepticism is its own | plague that will cause more trouble. | peteradio wrote: | Exactly. Its important to see this stratified across | subfields. If the vast majority are in homeopathy then | maybe who cares? If a substantial portion are in, oh lets | say Alzheimers treatment then maybe that's more of a | problem? | taeric wrote: | Basically this. So, fair that I shouldn't just be calling | for moderating the language. I'm more wanting specific | language with a distaste for unfocused skepticism. I say | this as a skeptic. :D | bmh wrote: | After reading "The Real Anthony Fauci" I'm not so sure the | headline is hyperbole. The article says that 1/4 of the trials | studied were badly flawed. | ekianjo wrote: | Closer to 50% of trials are probably junk since they cant be | reproduced independently | throw9away6 wrote: | That's being generous as only 1/10 can actually be fully | reproduced from my understanding. It's so bad that if you | want to create a product based on research your first need | to reproduce the result to make sure it's not bs. | MichaelZuo wrote: | I haven't heard of the 10% figure before, can you link to | the source? | defrost wrote: | [flagged] | dablweb wrote: | [flagged] | bmh wrote: | [flagged] | swader999 wrote: | [flagged] | smrtinsert wrote: | I can't think of anyone less qualified to write on the matter | than RFK jr, maybe MTG. | logicchains wrote: | Well his book is well-sourced so fortunately you don't have | to take him at his word, you can check the references if | you want. | LorenPechtel wrote: | Doesn't preclude being very deceptive with the facts. | ramraj07 wrote: | There's a difference between a scientist calling bs on some | scientific practices than a grifting, crazed group of people | calling bs on it. Can you cite the exact trials from your | source that are potentially problematic so we can discuss the | actual legitimacy of the methodology? | LatteLazy wrote: | [flagged] | ethanbond wrote: | RFK Jr is just a blatant, proven liar. | | Here's one such case that I'll point out only because the | bullshitting is so clear: | https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/22/politics/robert-f-kennedy- | jr-... | | He claims to have worked with Tapper for "three weeks on a | documentary" (they worked for 2 days on a 2-minute spot) that | was "killed by corporate" (it went live one day later than | planned). | | I'd recommend not using pathological liars' words as evidence | for other claims. | burkaman wrote: | Can you share what you read in that book that is relevant to | this article? | thenerdhead wrote: | Another good reason why you should learn how to read studies: | | https://peterattiamd.com/ns001/ | | https://biolayne.com/reps/how-to-read-research-a-biolayne-gu... | | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7392212/ | | And as a bonus, read books by controversial figures who talk | about these challenges through their own published studies and | decided it isn't worth fighting. | | What would be cool is to see "trust indicators" as part of a | study's metadata as it is reviewed through time and continually | shared by others. Could be a "study health score" or a checklist | showing the study isn't biased heavily by sponsors, methods, or | misleading language. | | Especially given that medicine is becoming more personal with the | advancements of AI and accessibility of tests, someone should be | able to understand the health of a study at-a-glance reviewed by | peer reviews rather than disclosed only by the authors. | randcraw wrote: | A primary trust indicator of any research result is the | reputation of the journal publishing the paper. Better journals | demand more, not just in terms of the impact/insight of the | results, but also the rigor of the experimental methodology | used and how well the data was curated and the confounding | variables identified and isolated. | | And of course, the criteria for observational-based research | differ a lot from mechanism-based, especially since the former | can't control for nearly as many variables. The same goes for | simulations or interpretive modeling, where experimentation is | minimal. | | Research studies differ quite a lot in how precisely the | mechanism of action is identified, isolated, tested, and | results interpreted. IMHO, blackening the trustworthiness of | all of science is unhelpful, especially when some models and | methods are surely more trustworthy and replicable than others. | Better to identify and catalog specific sources of error (or | imprecision) in order to remedy them than to just toss the | baby. | tails4e wrote: | Nutrition for me it a big issue. It seems like and ideal area for | scientific and medical study to give us light, but seems so hard | to get truly objective info. Fat is the devial/good/bad/OK, sugar | is the devil/bad/ok, etc. Should I avoid white bread like a hole | in the head, or is it fine? Too many agendas and not enough | truth. | darkclouds wrote: | I'd trust the NHS if the National Institute of Clinical | Excellence (NICE) actually published their minutes online. Most | employees only know what they have been taught, so whilst I agree | with the headline that some trial data is dodgy, it doesnt just | end there. | | There are multiple pathways to factor in, there is redundancy | built in, ie secondary pathways, there is the fact that not all | chemicals go where intended (best highlighted by radioactive | isotopes). When looking at the history of patented medicine, this | really started between WW1 and WW2, before WW1, most GP's | prescribed what was found in the body on a like for like basis, | and in some cases prescribed organs in various forms, like | desiccated thyroid gland for thyroid related problems, for | pernicious anaemia, raw liver used to be prescribed to women and | so on, but that has its problems like contamination and diseases. | | So from WW1/WW2 onwards the rise of patented medicine took hold, | but the main problem with patented medicine is the human body | hasnt evolved to use these new chemical compounds in the same way | as unpatented chemicals which have been around for thousands of | years. And todays GP's dont really highlight the side effects of | the patented medicine, and because they simply dont ask what you | have been eating and drinking etc, they have this hubris which | sucker punches your trust and sucks you in like a black hole, | until before you know it you are on half a dozen different drugs, | your quality of life is going down the pan and you've been left a | zombie wondering where did Hitler go wrong modelling the German | state of the time on the British Empire? You Americans | complaining about the cost of healthcare, should count yourself | lucky those insurance companies are looking out for your long | term interests and theirs! | | Fortunately, hospitals in other countries publishes studies and | as english seems to be the main language used for science, I have | to tip my hat to the Chinese who are roaring up the charts in | terms of investigating and publishing relevant studies that will | complement a quality of life one hopes to achieve, and we cant | forget Wikipedia, Pubmed and Google for connecting users with | pertinent studies. | | Saying that I do sometimes wonder if something like ChatGPT has | written some studies due to the poor quality of english used, but | generally they stand out like a sore thumb. | | Anyway, does any know why there is a connection between MDMA, | blood clotting and Manganese? | gordian-not wrote: | Masters and Phd requirements should include repeating another | research and checking whether they can recreate the results | sealeck wrote: | Unfortunately some of the experiments require a whole team to | carry out and take a huge amount of time to set up as well as | having to be carried out under very specific conditions. | Slaminerag wrote: | My institution's been included in studies primarily for patient | access. If we're not included, then good luck getting enough | patients, and even then it can take several years to enroll | enough patients. Replicating such a trial would be near | impossible. | gigatexal wrote: | In the age of QAnon and Alex Jones and science and vaccine | deniers we can't have things like clinical studies be corrupted. | Ugh. | linuxftw wrote: | The 'vaccine deniers' have been calling the 'studies' and | 'trials' trash for a long time. The evidence comes out that | they're trash, and somehow the 'vaccine deniers' are still | wrong? | | They removed liability from manufacturers, and suddenly the CDC | schedule exploded with new products. I mean, chicken pox has a | vaccine now? | Dig1t wrote: | I agree that the economic incentives changed, and it does | seem somewhat suspicious. | | I have a lot of work to do ahead of me, researching all of | these vaccines for my kids. Makes my head hurt just thinking | about it. | linuxftw wrote: | If you look at the individualized risk for childhood | vaccines and flu vaccines, there's effectively zero benefit | if you live in a 1st world country, and possibly a great | risk of neurological or immunological side effects. | nocoolnametom wrote: | That which was asserted without evidence could correctly be | dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax crowd | was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, rumor, and | often badly misread prepublication research and stats. Their | methodology was inherently flawed. Even if the conclusions | they came to have been "validated" their position was still | built upon this same flimsy scaffolding. It's not like the | "do your own research" blogs and videos somehow gathered the | same evidence used by this paper. This also does not indicate | that other positions held by the same crowd, which are | similarly based upon "anecdata" and rumor, are somehow made | more evident by this paper in Nature. | logicchains wrote: | >That which was asserted without evidence could correctly | be dismissed without evidence. AT THE TIME the anti-vax | crowd was basing their positions entirely upon anecdote, | rumor, and often badly misread prepublication research and | stats. | | The was an abundance of evidence that the covid vaccines | had a reasonable likelihood of being unsafe. Every single | previous attempt at a coronavirus vaccine had failed, | sometimes catastrophically (killing all the test animals), | that's why there wasn't an existing coronavirus vaccine on | the market. Every single previous attempt to bring a mRNA | treatment to the mass-market had failed due to safety | issues. Even in the Pfizer vaccine trial there were overall | more deaths in the vaccinated group than the placebo group, | due to cardiac deaths (although it wasn't a statistically | significant enough amount to draw a conclusion, it does | demonstrate that the trial had no power to identify if the | vaccine was net-harmful, as it didn't have enough | participants to make a meaningful conclusion about the | effect of the vaccine on excess deaths). | linuxftw wrote: | Don't forget, the Pfizer phase 3 trial was ended early | because they claimed that it was 90% effective. So, any | mid/longer term issues were missed. | | The pregnancy trials were outright abandoned. | | They didn't even conduct clinical trials for the bivalent | boosters. | | Zero efficacy in children, yet still strongly recommended | by the media and the state. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | >Every single previous attempt to bring a mRNA treatment | to the mass-market had failed due to safety issues. | | Not a single prototype mRNA-based drug passed phase3 | trials at any point - right up until the multiple ones | within a month of each other were deployed globally. | | The massive and remarkable coincidence of that, is truly | a special moment in history. | linuxftw wrote: | I agree, the assertion that 'vaccines' are safe can be | dismissed without evidence. There's no evidence concluding | they're actually safe. In fact, we have given the | manufacturers immunity because they're 'unavoidably | unsafe.' | | Just look at how the COVID trials were conducted. They | didn't even test each patient. Only some patients that | presented symptoms, and then not even all of those | patients. | | How long did they follow the health outcomes for approved | vaccines in the test groups? 3 months at most, and many | trials, not even that long. So if someone suffers a | neurological condition, well, we just won't know about it. | sonicshadow wrote: | Yeah not a great look, maybe science isn't the truth after all | mjfl wrote: | It's hard enough to run a clinical trial guys. It literally costs | $100 million at a minimum, yet the requirements that make it cost | this much are not enough. We are basically going to regulate new | medicine out of existence. | droopyEyelids wrote: | Hamilton Morris recently did a podcast that touched on some of | this, I think it was | https://www.patreon.com/posts/pod-78-legal-84786504 | | An interesting point he made was that in the wake of the | Thalidomide (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide) | scandal, the FDA started requiring drugs to be both safe _and | effective_ | | https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/histories-product-regulation/p... | | The 'effective' part has proven to be a big source of | complexity in the following years, because while it's | relatively easy to prove a drug is relatively safe, it's much | more difficult and subjective to prove a drug is effective. | That closes off a lot of areas of research and development. | | The kicker is that Thalidomide was never sold in the USA to | begin with. | | Anyway, as any reader can imagine, there would be a lot of | negative social outcomes to allowing the sale of ineffective | drugs. There's a lot of trouble now with medical devices and | drugs not being effective, even though we have the rule. I'm | not against regulation, I think medical sales are a really | complex issue and I don't know how to even judge where the | right balance of safety/effectiveness and innovation/freedom | could be. | dekhn wrote: | Thalidomide is sold in the USA as a treatment for several | conditions- it's a highly effective drug and is mostly safe | within the target population. | | (I point this out because most people only tell the very | first part of the thalidomide story). | throw9away6 wrote: | They kind of broke that when they allowed the approval of | Aduhelm which is basically shown to be expensive and | ineffective | WastingMyTime89 wrote: | Please read the article before commenting. The problem is not | how hard it is to run clinical trial. It's that made up data is | an endemic problem. It doesn't matter if clinical trials are | hard or easy to organise when up to a quarter don't actually | bother and just forge their results. | chaxor wrote: | But they _have_ to make up that data! Because the work they | are doing now was based on a other trial where they made up | data, so you have to fix this data to match what was expected | from the previous studies. Of course we need to protect their | right to make up data. /s | sonicshadow wrote: | Yeah who needs truth and accuracy anyway? Think of the small | businesses who will never be because they couldn't get a simple | drug on market with minimal testing | mjfl wrote: | You have to put $100 million into effective testing. Your | comment is disingenuous. | xhkkffbf wrote: | Even if they aren't faked, the ability to shut down a trial that | isn't delivering the right preliminary data is a big problem for | society. Why should we trust these drugs? | throw9away6 wrote: | A lot of these studies are prerun in the 3rd world before the | real one is done for credit. If sideffects show up the drug can | sometimes be mixed with one that has the same known side | effects to fool the studies. | jmpeax wrote: | Raw data examined: Ok 56%, Flawed 18%, Zombie 26% | | Raw data not available: Ok 97%, Flawed 2%, Zombie 1% | | Perhaps it's not good to call an unknown as "Ok"? Maybe Carlisle | should add his own paper to the mix? | twic wrote: | That's literally the point he's making! The terms "flawed" and | "zombie" reflect positive identification of dodgy data, so of | course when the data isn't available, they are less likely to | apply, hence why: | | > This finding alarmed him, too: it suggested that, without | access to the IPD -- which journal editors usually don't | request and reviewers don't see -- even an experienced sleuth | cannot spot hidden flaws. | freedude wrote: | "I think journals should assume that all submitted papers are | potentially flawed and editors should review individual patient | data before publishing randomised controlled trials," Carlisle | wrote in his report. | | This should be considered part of every journal's idea of due | diligence and this shouldn't be a new idea. Shysters, con artists | and snake oil salesmen have been around for a long time. The | purpose of a Journal is to publish reliable information and weed | out the garbage. How can you do that if you are not looking at | the entire picture? | Roark66 wrote: | They say "medicine". I would say science in general, perhaps we | could generalise even further to "any human activity is full of | unethical people trying to exploit it". But 25%!? That suggest | there is a big problem with how we "do science". Unfortunately I | have no solution to the problem. Publishing everything (including | raw data) for every research would probably help somewhat, but | only teams repeating experiments/trials would ensure it. | | I wonder if we suddenly took 10% of all money spent on science | (let's say in medicine) and instead of novel research we used it | to redo randomly chosen previous research. Would we loose or gain | in terms of new cures? And if we gained, what if we spent 15%, or | 25%? That's a great idea for a scientific study to find a point | of diminishing returns on "research verification". | | Would someone please write a research grant request for this? | bobbylarrybobby wrote: | That 10% investment would have a huge payoff too because it | would shut down avenues that were only opened due to p-hacking | long before they'd had a chance to seek further investment. | davidktr wrote: | Of course there are big problems with how we do science. Much | of it is garbage. Imagine most software was written by junior | engineers, without any code review or input from seniors. That | is today's science. | | Most scientific legwork is done by absolute beginners, i.e., | graduate students. They often lack a support structure to focus | on what they have learned so far. Most of the world is not | Oxbridge, MIT, Stanford. | | Where are the beginners' supervisors, you might ask? Chasing | the latest trend to secure funding. Pondering how their line of | research can be formulated as buzzword-du-jour markov chain. | Ass kissing the dean to get department funding. | | Having worked in research for 15 years, I am certain about two | things: (1) The scientific method yields better results than | doing things freehand. (2) Randomly axing 50% of academia would | improve the situation. | alexb_ wrote: | I'm not too knowledgeable when it comes to how scientific | experiments/trials are done - are the people who collect the | data, the people who interpret the data, and the people who | fund/benefit from the data different parties? Or are they the | same people? | Balgair wrote: | Great question, and I'm unfortunately going to have to give the | answer of 'it depends'. | | Each study is different and therefore run differently. Many, | _many_ , factors determine how a study is run, analyzed, and | published. | | Most studies are very small, using only one site and a few | volunteers. Most of these never see the light of day, as the | results aren't publishable or are uninteresting. Think power | law distributions with studies, not normal distributions. These | studies are often so small that the collector and interpreter | are the same person, typically they are also the grant writer | and admin. If lucky, they may get some nurses or undergrads to | help out. Again, I'd say this is ~80% of studies. | | The really large studies that places like Pfizer run will | separate out nearly all parts of a study. So consenters, | nurses, intake, data admin, funding admins, stats guys, etc are | all different people. These are very expensive studies to run | so it's really only for FDA approval, not scientific inquiry | and case studies. | | Generally, most studies are very small and not publishable. | They don't need to separate out everyone. Everyone kinda trusts | that everyone else is doing their best. If something snazzy is | found, then follow up studies will build on it's findings. Most | of the time though, nothing is really found. | WaitWaitWha wrote: | In my experience, they are different (speaking as someone | witnessing it from layman's perspective). Here is what I have | seen in Phase II & III trials: | | a) Pharma identities the type of patients they need (e.g., | 25-50 female, not pregnant, with specific ailment if Phase | III), specific tests, and measurements required throughout the | study. | | b) pharma contacts third party (3P) to manage study patients. | | c) 3P has relationship with dozens or even hundreds of doctors' | offices, knowing what office can fulfill the test & measure | requirement, and has the potential trial patient pool. | | d) 3P has existing contract with these doctors' & hospitals. | They get patients onto the study. ( <--- #1 reason this is | farmed out in my opinion) | | e) Doctors & hospitals perform the study and collect the data. | | f) doctors & hospitals pass the data to the 3P | | g) 3P passes it to the pharma | | h) repeat e) through g) as many times as the study requires it. | This can be once, or many times over years. | | i) pharma pays 3P, 3P pays doctors & hospitals, and they pay | the trial patients - each taking their cut along the way. | | There are variations on how this is done, sometimes no 3P, | sometimes pharma will have their own pool of patients and 3P. | Also this is a very rough flow as there are often checks, | audits, and validations (should be) done during the study. | linuxftw wrote: | For vaccine manufacturers, it's all the same people. Even if | you have whistleblowers come forward, they're ignored. | | Here's one quick way to rig any clinical trial: Anyone and | everyone that has any kind of negative reaction or health | condition gets disenrolled. Since it's 'double blind' it | appears on the surface level that there's no way to know who's | in what group. Naturally, the end result is always the same: | The test group had the same number of reactions as the control | by the end of the study. | nocoolnametom wrote: | > "Even if you have whistleblowers come forward, they're | ignored." | | Do you have any sources for this? I'm rather disbelieving of | it, but would love to be proven wrong. I can't imagine that | _some_ major news outlet wouldn't love to stick it to the | status quo with a whistleblower, unless the "whisteblower" | made false claims about their proximity in the company to the | dangerous/illegal actions they are trying to bring attention | to. | linuxftw wrote: | Here's a whistle blower from the Pfizer covid trials: | https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635 | | We can also see that the FDA does nothing to investigate | the integrity of the trials. They just accept whatever the | manufacturers tell them. | epicEHRsucks wrote: | There unfortunately are too many perverse incentives that | encourage fraudulent studies. Everyone should take findings | "established in the literature" with a grain of salt. We should | also incorporate more intuition and first-principles reasoning, | i.e. obesity is a harmful state for humans even if 100 RCTs | proved otherwise. | constantcrying wrote: | How can you do science if around a quarter of the data is just | straight up noise? Even when analysing large amounts of studies | the results becone contaminated very easily. | | And _why_ is it not standard practice to provide anonymous data | _or even publish the data_? What reason exists for that? So that | only the researchers them selves can analyze it? | thechao wrote: | The working stuff becomes part of a body of lore of "real | science" that you soak up in the lab. Not a great method, for | sure. | constantcrying wrote: | But the point of RCTs is that you can get unbiased, high | quality results _without_ having to rely on "lore" spreading | among medical professionals about which treatments are | effective and under which circumstances. | twic wrote: | That's actually mentioned in the article, which is quite good | and worth reading: | | > In 2016, the International Committee of Medical Journal | Editors (ICMJE), an influential body that sets policy for many | major medical titles, had proposed requiring mandatory data- | sharing from RCTs. But it got pushback -- including over | perceived risks to the privacy of trial participants who might | not have consented to their data being shared, and the | availability of resources for archiving the data. As a result, | in the latest update to its guidance, in 2017, it settled for | merely encouraging data sharing and requiring statements about | whether and where data would be shared. | mike_hearn wrote: | Yes the problem is that the research system rewards publishing | papers, but most of the work is collecting the data. So if you | release your data then other groups can write papers based on | your effort for far less cost. It's sort of analogous to the | problem of open source business models in the software world: | if company A writes the code and releases it for free and earns | money from running a cloud service, and company B just offers a | cloud service, then the second company can get much higher | margins because they don't have to develop it. | | Unfortunately it's not easy to see what the alternatives are, | beyond simply not funding research through | government/foundation grants. When science is paid for by | companies you don't have this incentive issue because the | research is judged based on (ultimately) whether it leads to | successful products, not whether it leads to lots of papers | getting published. You have other incentive issues of course. | jonlucc wrote: | I work in preclinical pharma research, so I have spent a good | amount of time trying to recapitulate published data in animal | models, so not quite clinical trial data. People who do this | work learn how to evaluate trustworthiness. It can be as | granular as "this lab is the only one publishing this kind of | information, so we'll be skeptical" to a bit more broad "this | class of drug isn't expected to have that biology" to "I trust | this company over that institution". We route around the fact | that some information isn't reliable, and that's not always | because of dishonesty or fraud. | | I'm not a clinician and don't deal with them regularly, but the | impression I get is that new studies are published by | researchers who have a lot of connections (dubbed thought | leaders). They present at conferences. Other clinicians pick up | the use case that matches their need (this patient has failed | other therapies for this indication, let's try this new thing | I'm now aware of). Then as experience grows, clinicians have | more nuanced understanding of the use cases for that new | information and its reliability. Frustratingly, this can take | years, but that's bug that's also a feature. | evandijk70 wrote: | Privacy concerns are the most important reason. A more cynical | reason might that the odds that a papers is deemed 'ok' is far | larger if the raw/anonymous data is not provided. Remember, the | authors of the suspect studies provided their data voluntarily, | and in the end it only hurt their reputation/impact. | amai wrote: | There should be a paperswithdata for medicine like there is a | https://paperswithcode.com/ for data science. | gumby wrote: | Note that the article discusses research studies and not clinical | trials for drug or device approval. | | These research studies are important (look at how many were | conducted on COVID-19 over the last few years) but are typically | not held to a particularly high standard, as with most science. | Which doesn't excuse bad data or poor statistics (the latter | supposedly supposed to be picked up in peer review). | piqufoh wrote: | Hmm, I read the article as explicitly calling out "clinical | trials" (as referenced in the title and abstract) and it makes | no reference research studies. I don't understand the | distinction between "research studies" and "clinical trials", | surely all research studies where an RCT is performed with real | patients and real drugs is a clinical trial? | gumby wrote: | I meant "trials for research studies" as opposed to "trials | for drug or device approval." | | The amount of record keeping and oversight of a drug approval | trial is enormous (and as a consequence insanely expensive) | -- data handling, having disjoint groups at each stage | handling and analyzing data, etc and detailed records of | every manufacturing step -- think ISO9000 on steroids. | | Nobody would bother to go to that effort for a scientific | exploration, nor should they. So the bar is much lower. | | I am making no excuse for shoddy science! But it is quite | unlikely for a licensed drug. | [deleted] | __666__ wrote: | [flagged] | wahnfrieden wrote: | Is it structural greed? | oldgradstudent wrote: | With the risk of starting a flame war, we recently had several | well-publicised clinical trials that reported 95% efficacy of | some certain modality. Yet, in reality, efficacy as defined in | the trial turned out to be closer to 0%. | | Instead of investigating what in the design and execution of the | trial led to such a discrepancy, the problem was handled by | denying there was a problem, changing the goalposts, reporting | ad-hoc hypotheses as facts, silencing all critics, and forcing | the public to take the modality anyway or lose jobs, school, and | freedom of movement. | taeric wrote: | I can only guess you mean something regarding the pandemic? Do | you have links to show things were "closer to 0%?" Sounds more | than a touch outlandish. :( | | I'm confident we will know even more about things as time goes | on. I'm less confident on any nefarious motivations in most of | it. Reality is that a lot of people died, and everyone was | trying to gain control and an advantage over the situation. | Mistakes were certainly made, but I am back to low confidence | in thinking that everything was a mistake. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > I'm confident we will know even more about things as time | goes on. I'm less confident on any nefarious motivations in | most of it. Reality is that a lot of people died, and | everyone was trying to gain control and an advantage over the | situation. | | It's not a matter of being nefarious. They (CDC, FDA, health | authorities all over the world) really though it was | important, but they've used unacceptable means to enforce | their beliefs. | | Science dies when PR takes over reality. | | If reality disagrees with the trial, you have to debug the | rial, and find what in the design or exection went wrong. | | > Mistakes were certainly made, but I am back to low | confidence in thinking that everything was a mistake. | | Silencing critics by health authorities is not a mistake. It | is an intentional act to enforce your views. | oldgradstudent wrote: | >Do you have links to show things were "closer to 0%?" Sounds | more than a touch outlandish. :( | | Take the Pfizer vaccine. The clinical trial's main endpoint | was ~95% efficacy in one thing and one thing only, prevention | of symptomatic Covid. | | Not reduction in mortality, not reduction in serious disease, | not infection, and not spread. The only thing the trial | tested and reported was prevention of symptomatic Covid. This | is also the sole indication in the package insert as approved | by the FDA. | | In reality, everyone I know got vaccinated and got | symptomatic Covd. I mean everyone, no exceptions. The | situation is the similar in my entire country and around the | world. | sonicshadow wrote: | Downvoted for not parroting Democratic Bay Area values. We | will be contacting all FAANG companies and everyone listed | in Crunchbase to let them know your an anti-vaxxer. | Madmallard wrote: | hahahahaha | sonicshadow wrote: | Repeat after me: | | GET ALL COVID BOOSTERS | | WEAR A MASK AT ALL TIMES | | VOTE FOR BIDEN FOR 2024, 2028, 2032, 2036 | taeric wrote: | Do you know of any studies on the discrepancy? My | understanding was that Omicron came out and basically gave | the middle finger to everyone's precautions. With what | seemed like literally nothing working against it. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > Do you know of any studies on the discrepancy? | | The discrepancy is so massive you don't need large | studies. You can easily observe yourself. | | (a) Make a survey of the people you know and compare | their vaccination status to getting symptomatic Covid. | Apply a simple statistical test to test whether it is | consistent with the trial results. | | [Spolier: it is not] | | (b) [advanced] what is your best estimate of the vaccine | efficacy given your results of the survey in (a). | | The measles vaccine has 95% efficacy. You vaccinate and | the disease effectively disappears. | | > My understanding was that Omicron came out and | basically gave the middle finger to everyone's | precautions. With what seemed like literally nothing | working against it. | | That's an ad-hoc hypothesis. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis | | It was quite clear that the numbers are inconsistent with | 95% efficacy way before Omicron. | taeric wrote: | But this is exposing ignorance of a different kind? The | hopes for a sterilizing vaccine were remote, at best. | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9595357/ is | a good overview of that line. | | Folks don't like comparing to the flu, but in this there | are obvious similarities. With obviously similar outcomes | on the ability of a vaccine to give sterilizing immunity. | | Much to your chagrin, though, I actually can say that | among my contacts, getting the vaccine basically led to | people not getting symptomatic covid. Folks got what they | thought of as a bad cold. Almost flu like, but I know | very few, if any, folks that were so bad off that they | were symptomatic covid. Most wouldn't have even qualified | as having a bad flu. (It is frustrating how many folks | underestimate how hard the flu hits.) | | Contrast with family members that did not get the vaccine | in time, and were hospitalized. It was truly different. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > Folks don't like comparing to the flu, but in this | there are obvious similarities. With obviously similar | outcomes on the ability of a vaccine to give sterilizing | immunity. | | And there's quite a controversy whether the flu vaccine | is worthwhile becuase of that. The Cochrane systematic | reviews are quite scathing. | | > Much to your chagrin, though, I actually can say that | among my contacts, getting the vaccine basically led to | people not getting symptomatic covid. Folks got what they | thought of as a bad cold. Almost flu like, but I know | very few, if any, folks that were so bad off that they | were symptomatic covid. | | That's the definition of symptomatic Covid - a positive | Covid test + flu-like symptoms (regardless of severity). | That is what the trial measured and reported. | | (This is in contrast to Asymptomatic Covid which is a | positive Covid test but without any symptoms at all) | | > Most wouldn't have even qualified as having a bad flu. | (It is frustrating how many folks underestimate how hard | the flu hits.) | | No one I know experience anything close to a bad flu. | | > Contrast with family members that did not get the | vaccine in time, and were hospitalized. It was truly | different. | | Around me it was a mild cold to medium flu regardless of | vaccination, including people in their 80s and 90s, with | all the pre-existing conditions you can imagine. The only | exception was a vaccinated friend (late 40s) who got | scary chest pains for several days when he contacted | Covid. No treatment beyond Paracetamol and Ibuprofen. | ifyoubuildit wrote: | > getting the vaccine basically led to people not getting | symptomatic covid. Folks got what they thought of as a | bad cold. | | Am I mistaken in thinking that "bad cold" == symptomatic? | Doesn't symptomatic just mean had symptoms? It sounds | like you're talking about severe covid. | taeric wrote: | Not mistaken, but also not useful. In particular, it is | hard to tease out folks that did have a common cold from | those that had reduced covid. The vast majority of the | covid positive folks I knew post vaccine were | asymptomatic. Almost apologetic that they tested positive | for it, but not at all sick or scared. Even my kids, when | they tested positive, were more upset about implications | than they were physically ill. (Indeed, for our kids, | when they finally tested positive, we didn't see any | symptoms from them at all...) | ifyoubuildit wrote: | What is reduced covid? The ifr for a 30 something was | .06% before vaccines according to the study below. | | If my math is correct, thats one 30-something dying for | every 1667 infected _before vaccines_. I don 't have | hospitalization data handy, but I think "reduced covid" | is just what most people had, vaccinated or not. That's | not to discount the ones that did get it bad of course, | and my condolences for any losses you suffered. | | Of course it can still be true that the deaths happened | more often in unvaccinated people (did that continue to | be true the whole time?), while your individual risk of | death was low (the .06 above in my case, and I had a | pretty standard cold both times thankfully). | | https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS014 | 0-6... | taeric wrote: | Just look up the hospitalization and death rates for | folks vaccinated and not. It is stark in difference. | | I had what was probably covid early on. Was like the time | I got pneumonia. Asthma attacks in my youth were | comparable, if much shorter lived. Getting a positive | test case later was something that gave me a fever for a | few hours. Scary, due to circumstances. But I was back up | and moving in basically no time. | ifyoubuildit wrote: | > Just look up the hospitalization and death rates for | folks vaccinated and not. It is stark in difference. | | Are those rates an argument against the claim that most | people didn't have a bad case, vaccinated or not? | | > I had what was probably covid early on. Was like the | time I got pneumonia. Asthma attacks in my youth were | comparable, if much shorter lived. Getting a positive | test case later was something that gave me a fever for a | few hours. Scary, due to circumstances. But I was back up | and moving in basically no time. | | How do you know that your possible second case's low | severity is due to the vaccine and not the immunity you | would have developed in the first case, or weakening of | variants (or some mix of all 3), or even just random | chance? | | It's hard to ignore personal experience, but it only | tells us so much. Like me with my 2 unvaccinated cases | having an easy time, I'd be remiss if I generalized that | to everyone. | taeric wrote: | What are you driving at? The rates for vaccinated versus | not are a clear indicator that the vaccines helped. Hard | to see any other way of interpreting that data. | | You are correct that, if I did, in fact, have an early | case of covid, I cannot be sure that the vaccine helped | me with the later case. So, as far as that goes, my | "evidence" is anecdotal at best and can't be taken fully | as proof of anything. | | You will have a hard time arguing against vaccines with | the aggregate evidence above, though. | ifyoubuildit wrote: | Sorry, let me clarify. I'm not trying to argue against | vaccines. | | I entered the thread at | | > getting the vaccine basically led to people not getting | symptomatic covid. Folks got what they thought of as a | bad cold. | | I asked for clarity there because it didn't line up with | what I understood to be symptomatic covid (have covid and | have any symptoms). It sounded like you were really | saying the vaccine led to people in your circle not | having severe covid. | | I believe it is true that the vaccine reduced instances | of severe covid. But my point in this thread is that most | people already weren't going to have severe covid (based | on ifr rates pre vaccine, though hospitalization data | would be more useful here). | | In other words, "The rates for vaccinated versus not are | a clear indicator that the vaccines helped" is true as I | understand it, and not something I'm arguing against. It | does not contradict "most cases of covid were not severe, | vaccinated or not" though. | | Does that make sense? | taeric wrote: | Ah, fair. I am definitely playing loose in that area. | | For specifics in my circle, I really only have my | immediate family and some coworkers as direct evidence. | Among those, I don't know anyone that got symptomatic | anything if they were vaccinated. We had plenty of colds, | but only tested positive during a time when that wasn't | going through the family. (We only tested due to kid's | having contacts that got covid.) | | So, to that end, only vaccinated person in the family | that ever had symptoms was me. And, as I said, it was | super quick. Such that I can't say for sure the kids | didn't have symptoms overnight that we just didn't see. | | Pulling it back to "most cases overall were not severe," | is tough, though. If that is somehow indicative that the | vaccines didn't help me, that would also imply that they | didn't help the population at large. And the data just | doesn't agree with that. | | Is that where you are asking? Or did I avoid the | question? | ifyoubuildit wrote: | I'm just trying to make the point that the vaccines | helped at a population level (going from .06% to .0006% | or whatever IFR is real numbers when you're talking about | the whole world), but I think people overestimate the | impact it had on them individually. | | And it's easy to see why they would! Given the | environment at the time (daily press conferences, scary | news articles, demonization of the unvaccinated, | mandates) I think it's easy to believe that the vaccine | saved you from a death sentence if you get vaccinated and | then have an easy case. | | It's easy to not notice that in a room of 1667 infected | unvaccinated 30 year olds (I don't know how old you are, | just using that as an example), maybe over a thousand of | them would have had a similar case that you did, and only | one of them would have died. | taeric wrote: | On that, I think I'm in violent agreement with you. In | particular, I actually was annoyed with how much stress | folks put pre-teens through regarding vaccination. I had | friends that were terrified of doing anything with their | toddlers before they got vaccinated, despite the odds | still being higher for the parents with a vaccine than | the kids without. It was truly baffling. | | For my part, I suspect it helped me. Childhood asthma and | general obesity being what they are. I was almost | certainly in elevated risks for my age group. To your | point, my age group was still moderate risks, all told. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > Folks got what they thought of as a bad cold. | | Symptomatic Covid is simply a positive Covid test + any | flu-like symptoms. What you're describing is symptomatic | Covid. This is what was measured and reported in the | trial. | | You might say that's not very interesting because it | doesn't measure anything of importance. You would be | right. That is exactly what critics say before the | trials. | | https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037 | | The trials were never meant to test whether there would | be any mortality benefit, any reduction in serious | disease, any reduction in hospitalization, or any effect | on infection or transmission. | | What they did meausre, turned out to be inconsistent with | reality, though. | taeric wrote: | Symptomatic covid for the first round was far worse than | that. Hell, even for later rounds, symptomatic covid was | pretty intense. Again, I had family that neglected | getting the vaccine and almost died with that decision. | We know of many people that neglected the vaccine and did | die. | | So, if the concern is you are upset a miracle vaccine | didn't get developed, you're losing my interest quick. | Anyone that got upset that you had a few symptoms is | overblowing concerns to a non-useful degree. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > So, if the concern is you are upset a miracle vaccine | didn't get developed, you're losing my interest quick. | | No, the concern is not that a miracle vaccine didn't get | developed. The trial measured and reported whether people | who got vaccinated got those "few symptoms" vs people who | got the placebo. It claimed 95% efficacy in preventing | those "few sysmptoms", but it did not do so in reality. | | The concern is that the trial results do not agree with | reality. That means that something is wrong in either the | design or execution of the trial. It's a bug in the | trial, and a bug should be debugged. | LorenPechtel wrote: | I don't think it's a bug in the trial, but rather | evolution at work. | | The vaccine worked pretty well against the Wuhan strain, | but Covid breeds variants like it was a rabbit. The | farther from the strain coded into the vaccine the less | effective the vaccine is. It still seems to be pretty | good at reducing the severity, though--the unvaccinated | are dying at a far higher rate than the vaccinated. | oldgradstudent wrote: | > I don't think it's a bug in the trial, but rather | evolution at work. | | That's called an ad-hoc hypothesis. | | _In science and philosophy, an ad hoc hypothesis is a | hypothesis added to a theory in order to save it from | being falsified._ | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hoc_hypothesis | | It could be true, but it is not enough to assert it, it | has to be proven. | linuxftw wrote: | Even in the initial data released by the FDA, Pfizer | didn't test all patients for COVID during the trial. In | fact, they didn't even test all 'suspected' cases during | the trial. In fact, there were more 'suspected but not | verified' cases among the test group than the control. | | It was junk science from top to bottom, and this assumes | any science was conducted at all. According to a whistle | blower, the science was fraudulent. | taeric wrote: | But it is easy to see that the "few symptoms" in the | trial patients easily proxied to "safer outcomes" in the | wild? I seriously cannot underline hard enough that folks | that didn't get the vaccine put their lives in extreme | risk for basically no reason. | | Seriously, the numbers were drastic for vaccinated versus | not in hospitalizations alone. To push the narrative that | they were wrong to get vaccines out just feels misguided. | | If you are pushing that we should continue to get better | at trials and reporting? I agree with that. Any harder | push there, though, feels nitpicking at best, and I don't | see the direction you are hoping to go. | YPCrumble wrote: | At first I didn't believe this could be true but the link | is here: | https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2034577 | | It seems that Pfizer basically rammed the vaccine through | because it prevented covid with 95% efficacy for a couple | months and made the case that it was too effective to | continue the study. | | We now know that antibodies from Pfizer decrease | significantly and quickly after a couple months, so it | seems very likely that Pfizer knew this as well and decided | that after two months was the perfect time to conclude | their study and start selling vaccines. | SV_BubbleTime wrote: | >selling vaccines | | To the governments, who have no money but from tax | payers. | | This I think was the most egregious marketing lie in | recent history. That everyone who was jumping up and down | for their vaccine was under an impression it was free. | | The same people rabbling all day about "transfer of | wealth" saw no issue there. | | I don't have a stance on covid or vaccines that is | terribly unique. But that most people overlooked the | massive economic reasons to move in the direction that it | did, annoys me. | LorenPechtel wrote: | No. The trial was intended to conclude when they had | sufficient data to get an acceptable confidence interval. | It was to be periodically reviewed to see how it was | faring against that yardstick. | | They ended up tossing one of the intermediate reviews | because it was overtaken by events--the objective was | met, spend the time on analyzing that data rather than | the now-irrelevant intermediate review. | | The test did nothing towards establishing how long the | protection lasted--they can't have rushed it through | based on that being short because they had no measurement | of it then. | | You simply can't measure time effects in medicine other | than by observing them. If you want to know what | protection is like after a year you have to wait a year | and then measure it. (This is also why we saw repeated | changes to the shelf life of the vaccine--the vaccine | makers simply didn't have the time to establish what the | true shelf life was and thus could only claim what they | had measured. Note that this is pervasive in medicine-- | stored properly most drugs are effective far beyond the | stated shelf life. It's just the manufacturers have no | reason to spend the money to certify this.) | | And in blaming Pfizer you show your bias--why did every | vaccine maker do the same thing at the same time?? | | If anything I'll blame Pfizer for making a weak vaccine. | Moderna chose to go with a higher dose that appears to | provide slightly more protection at the cost of more side | effects at the time. | sonicshadow wrote: | You have just made enemies with the entire sheep-mind of the | Democratic Party. Prepare to be cancelled - please share your | driver's license #, LinkedIn profile, and most convenient | checking account number so we may donate your savings to the | Joe Biden Life Support/re-election campaign. | [deleted] | Thoeu388 wrote: | [flagged] | CrampusDestrus wrote: | it's 2023, we have the means to cheaply record and store audio | and video evidence for basically any medical experiment. we can | record every patient reaction and opinion without relying on the | reasearchers' hearsay. we also have the means to store and | distribute all the binary/textual raw data gathered throughout | the experiments. | | maybe as an intermediate step we could make available all the | recordings to the peer reviewers and only offer the raw | experimental data bundled in the paper publicly? maybe in the | future we can have 1TB studies without breaking a sweat? maybe | all the money we give to publishers can be spent on servers to | archive all the primary data so at least we aren't simply filling | the pockets of MBAs? | jamesdwilson wrote: | how do you prevent cherry picking? | CrampusDestrus wrote: | that's such a vague question | | for example, if you have 50 partecipants but only provide the | multimedia evidence for 20 of them your study should be | thrown out the window | dolni wrote: | What is preventing someone from having 200 participants, | but saying they only had 100 participants, and then only | providing evidence for 100 participants? | throw9away6 wrote: | You have to declare the study population before you | request the next round of funding. Thereby fixing the | problem. | CrampusDestrus wrote: | The researchers will have to have gone through some kind | of third party agency to get the partecipants. This | agency should be queried to see the number they report | dolni wrote: | How does this agency determine who can meaningfully | participate in the study? Are they going to have the | expertise to make that determination for _every_ study | that could possibly be conducted? | | What is the difference (to a layperson) between cherry- | picking participants and rejecting participants because | they do not meet your study's criteria? | | Who funds this agency? | | Do the members of the reviewing agency have their own | biases, and might those biases tarnish the reputation of | a study that is actually well-conducted? (hint: this | already happens in journals) | linuxftw wrote: | Nothing. Pfizer did this, albeit wasn't 50% of the | enrollment. | | You can see that here: | https://kirschsubstack.com/p/pfizer-phase-3-clinical- | trial-f... | lesuorac wrote: | No Pfizer did not do that. | | Pfizer had a trial with 21823 people in the Expirement | group and 21823 people in the Placebo group. In the | results they excluded data for 1790 from the Expirement | group and 1585 Placebo group. However, _crucially_ Pfizer | never claimed there were only 100 people in the study | after starting with 200; you know pfizer excluded 3375 | people because _Pfizer told you_. | raverbashing wrote: | "But we have 20, the other 30 volunteers were removed by | unrelated reasons" (and it is common to exclude volunteers | from experiments) | jonlucc wrote: | Every clinical trial paper I've read has a discussion of | inclusion and exclusion criteria. I think for the trial | to be registered, it has to include this information. | CrampusDestrus wrote: | "unrelated reasons" should not be an acceptable excuse | though. either state the reason or it goes into the | trash. and if they were private reasons you can still | contact them to confirm they left on their own volition | and/or they didn't finish the trial without getting into | specifics. you only need one lie to suspect the whole | thing | ttpphd wrote: | LOL looks like someone has not had to get data collection | protocols through IRB approval... | CrampusDestrus wrote: | if researchers are so untrustworthy then what's your | solution? | Balgair wrote: | For a 'quick' overview into the _mess_ that is IRBs, this | book review is a good starting place: | https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/book-review-from- | overs... | | TL;DR: IRBs are a mess, hyper-individualized, and the problem | ain't getting any better any time soon. | WastingMyTime89 wrote: | > maybe as an intermediate step we could make available all the | recordings to the peer reviewers | | The issue is clearly not the amount of data available to peer | reviewers considering it's already easy to detect major flaws | in a quarter of published peer reviewed research. The issue is | that peer reviewers do a shoddy job which should surprise no | one having ever published peer reviewed research. | | And to be fair why should they do better? It's generally | unpaid, it's poorly paid when it is paid and it's not | particularly well considered. | sonicshadow wrote: | Sounds like a YC idea? | pbmonster wrote: | These are medical trials. How do you preserve the patients | privacy in all of this? | | Or do subjects need to wave all their doctor-patient privacy | rights before joining any trial? | CrampusDestrus wrote: | If we discover that we can't trust researchers then what else | are we left with? Doctor-patient privacy works if the doctor | is truthful in their reporting | Slaminerag wrote: | It's generally permitted to share de-identified patient data. | As long as you're not sharing patients names, medical record | numbers, birthdays, and a couple of other fields, you should | be fine. | jononomo wrote: | I don't think it makes sense to publish the results of clinical | trials and other scientific experiments until after they have | been independently replicated. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-07-18 23:01 UTC)