Posted on 07/19/2021 7:36:51 AM PDT by Red Badger
Opinions expressed in this article don't necessarily reflect the views of ScienceAlert editorial staff.
==================================================================================
Haruko Obokata published two papers in January 2014 that described how regular blood cells could be turned into pluripotent stem cells.
At the time, this was a coup – it dramatically simplified a previously complicated process and opened up new vistas of medical and biological research, while neatly sidestepping the bioethical considerations of using human embryos to harvest stem cells.
Moreover, the process for this was straightforward, and involved applying a weak acid solution or mechanical pressure – oddly similar to how you'd clean a rust stain off a knife.
Within a few days, scientists noticed some of the images in the paper were irregular. And a broader skepticism began. Could it really be that simple?
As the experiments were simple and the biologists were curious, attempts to replicate the papers' findings began immediately. They failed. By February, Obokata's institute had launched an investigation. By March, some of the paper's co-authors were disavowing the methods. By July, the papers were retracted.
While the papers were clearly unreliable, there was no clarity on the center of the problem. Had the authors mislabelled a sample? Did they discover a method that worked once but was inherently unreliable?
Had they simply made up the data? It took years longer, but the scientific community got an approximate answer when further related papers by Obokata were also retracted for image manipulation, data irregularities, and other problematic issues.
The whole episode was a sterling example of science correcting itself. An important result was published, it was doubted, it was tested, investigated, and found wanting… and then it was retracted.
This is how we might hope the process of organized skepticism would always work. But, it doesn't.
In the vast majority of scientific work, it is incredibly rare for other scientists to even notice irregularities in the first place, let alone marshal the global forces of empiricism to do something about them. The underlying assumption within academic peer review is that fraud is sufficiently rare or unimportant as to be unworthy of a dedicated detection mechanism.
Most scientists assume they will never come across a single case of fraud in their careers, and so even the thought of checking calculations in reviewable papers, re-running analyses, or checking if experimental protocols were properly deployed is deemed unnecessary.
Worse, the accompanying raw data and analytical code often needed to forensically analyze a paper are not routinely published, and performing this kind of stringent review is often considered to be a hostile act, the kind of drudge work reserved only for the deeply motivated or the congenitally disrespectful.
Everyone is busy with their own work, so what kind of grinch would go to such extremes to invalidate someone else's?
Which brings us neatly to ivermectin, an anti-parasitic drug trialed as a treatment for COVID-19 after lab-bench studies early in 2020 showed it was potentially beneficial.
It rose in popularity sharply after a published-then-withdrawn analysis by the Surgisphere group showed a huge reduction in death rates for people who take it, triggering a massive wave of use for the drug across the globe.
More recently, the evidence for ivermectin's efficacy relied very substantially on a single piece of research, which was preprinted (that is, published without peer review) in November 2020.
This study, drawn from a large cohort of patients and reporting a strong treatment effect, was popular: read over 100,000 times, cited by dozens of academic papers, and included in at least two meta-analytic models that showed ivermectin to be, as the authors claimed, a "wonder drug" for COVID-19.
It is no exaggeration to say that this one paper caused thousands if not millions of people to get ivermectin to treat and/or prevent COVID-19.
A few days ago, the study was retracted amid accusations of fraud and plagiarism. A masters student who had been assigned to read the paper as part of his degree noticed that the entire introduction appeared to be copied from earlier scientific papers, and further analysis revealed that the study's datasheet posted online by the authors contained obvious irregularities.
It is hard to overstate how monumental a failing this is for the scientific community. We proud guardians of knowledge accepted at face value a piece of research that was so filled with holes that it only took a medical student a few hours to entirely dismantle.
The seriousness accorded to the results was in direct contrast to the quality of the study. The authors reported incorrect statistical tests at multiple points, standard deviations that were extremely implausible, and a truly eye-watering degree positive efficacy – the last time the medical community found a '90 percent benefit' for a drug on a disease, it was the use of antiretroviral medication to treat people dying of AIDS.
Yet, no-one noticed. For the better part of a year, serious, respected researchers included this study in their reviews, medical doctors used it as evidence to treat their patients, and governments acknowledged its conclusions in public health policy.
No-one spent the 5 minutes required to download the data file that the authors had uploaded online and notice that it reported numerous deaths happening before the study had even begun. No one copy-and-pasted phrases from the introduction into Google, which is all it takes to notice just how much of it is identical to already-published papers.
This inattention and inaction perpetuated the saga – when we remain studiously disinterested in the problem, we also don't know how much scientific fraud there is, or where it can be readily located or identified, and consequently make no robust plans to address or ameliorate its effects.
A recent editorial in the British Medical Journal argued that it might be time to change our basic perspective on health research, and assume that health research is fraudulent until proven otherwise.
That is to say, not to assume that all researchers are dishonest, but to begin the receipt of new information in health research from a categorically different baseline level of skepticism as opposed to blind trust.
This might sound extreme, but if the alternative is accepting that occasionally millions of people will receive medications based on unvetted research that is later withdrawn entirely, it may actually be a very small price to pay.
“More recently, the evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy relied very substantially on a single piece of research,...”
This is lie. It is not merely wrong, or an error, it is a deliberate untruth.
In an age of Narratives, the truth is easy to keep hidden.
Its correct that science fraud can flourish and fly under the radar and the system needs to change. Not sure about the specific case, as I thought there was more than one positive study...but maybe K am mistaken.
My question with this is the same as HCQ.
What is the method of action? Why does it work?
That doesn’t make sense to me.
The good thing about Ivermectin is that it’s alternative medicine. The bad thing about Ivermectin is that like most alternative medicine, it’s complete quackery.
Why does anything work?
Who knows you try it and see
Viagra was supposed to be a new blood pressure drug that quite accidentally turned into a gold mine. there have been other cases this is the most financially rewarding one.
There is a reason it is called “practicing” medicine.
The fact that a scientist will be dishonest in order to serve his own ends is no more remarkable than the fact that an auto mechanic will tell you that your car needs repairs that it doesn’t really need. It’s an aspect of human nature that permeates every area of human activity, particularly where a large body of specialized expertise is involved.
That was always my first question, and since no one had a particular answer I remained suspicious.
Here’s an Ivermectin user.
He posted this Thread on FR.
https://freerepublic.com/focus/chat/3974843/posts?page=200#200
Post # 199 his daughter had to post for him.
So I guess this review is a zero out of 5 Stars.
Even if the article is true, there’s no reason to believe that the drug is harmful in itself, to prohibit people from taking it, or to cancel researchers who are calling for additional scientific study.
“More recently, the evidence for ivermectin’s efficacy relied very substantially on a single piece of research,...”
This is lie. It is not merely wrong, or an error, it is a deliberate untruth.
************************************************************
Which is the lie? This piece or the many success stories of Ivermectin (and Hydroxychloroquine)?
Science + Politics = Political Science......................
Several countries have used Ivermectin to very good effect. Now is it necessary to go back and kill all those patients who used it successfully as they have no right to be alive?
This article really applies to the experimental vaccines not Ivermectin. This is a load of crap.
There are hundreds of actual peer reviewed studies now on both Ivermectin and Hydroxycloroquin that prove both are effective. Along with hundreds of doctors and entire countries like India that have used both drugs successfully. The recent India outbreak was caused by one state suddenly stopping the free distribution of Ivermectin. When they re-enacted the distribution, the outbreak went away.
This site is run by real doctors treating covid patients and has all of this information.
https://covid19criticalcare.com/
A positive study or two and many thousands of “anecdotal” positive cases.
It’s not quackery.
It’s another tool in the pharmacological tool kit.
Billions of people on the planet. They’re all different. Better more treatment choices than fewer.
The claim that the evidence for IVM rested on a single study. That was never the case, and the authors know it.
The evidence that convinced the world consists of three meta-analyses, each conducted independently, and each reaching the same conclusion that IVM is a safe, effective treatment for early stage (viral stage) COVID, and as a prophylaxis.
Andrew Hill, Tess Lawrie, and Paul Merick’s groups all have published independently, and made the same findings. Tess Lawrie has already analyzed the effect of excluding the cited study, and has published her results in pre-print, showing that removing this study has no effect on the findings.
The authors are simply lying. There is no other way to describe this piece.
I have seen analyses of the functioning of both on FR. I don’t have time to go hunt them down, though. I believe the HCQ at least works when the zinc you take with it allows the HCQ into the cells where it destroys the virus protein.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.