• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

New law:scientists could face criminal charges in the future for false data

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,429
Location
UK
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/8...nal-charges-fraudulent-medical-drugs-research.

This law should also include psychological studies that falsely promote GET and CBT that have caused so much harm to the ME community.

New laws could see scientists face CRIMINAL charges for research fraud
SCIENTISTS who carry out fraudulent medical research would face criminal charges under new laws being considered by MPs.
By LUCY JOHNSTON

Scientists-behind-bars-887309.jpg


Members have been told that misleading claims about the effectiveness of drugs have led to patients dying.

Whistleblowers have also received death threats. Norman Lamb, chairman of the Science and Technology Select Committee, has written to each UK university to ask them to ensure staff who expose misconduct are protected.

The all-party committee has received testimony claiming prominent academics are paid large sums of money to publish false data.

Consultant cardiologist Dr Peter Wilmshurst, who submitted evidence to the report, said: “If someone was to falsify data about aircraft performance and planes started crashing they would likely face a criminal prosecution. But falsifying data about drugs is highly unlikely to lead to a sanction, even if it kills people."
 
Last edited:

RogerBlack

Senior Member
Messages
902
It's worth remembering that none of the PACE et al trials appear to be affected by false data.
Most of the flaws in the trial can be found by close reading of the papers.

The problem is in the flawed analysis, which is very very much harder to prove is intentionally false, and to legislate for in any meaningful way.

They did not fake peoples improvement - they actually improved on the measures chosen, and those measures chosen were published accurately.

Legislating for 'bad' and 'misleading' is much, much harder than legislating for wholesale making up of data, and has unfortunate consequences.

Actually requiring open data would be a good step.
And by open data, I mean data that (once stripped of identifiers) is open to at the bare minimum any working scientist for any purpose whatsoever.