GreenEdge
Senior Member
- Messages
- 672
- Location
- Brisbane, Australia
AI reveals huge amounts of fraud in medical research | DW News
Dysfunkion
Senior Member
- Messages
- 367
You can't trust nothing these days! IT's also hard to detect fraud yourself and sometimes you flat out can't with medical research because you would need to have been the one involved with making it to do so. That's why when it comes to research on things I cross reference a lot of forums and even reddit as much as many people here don't like that place because real people's real experiences with various things will tell you a lot more in certain ways than a research paper clinically highlighting observations will, it can also reveal things that haven't been discovered yet that can happen that were previously thought to not be possible.
I have so many times across the internet over the years come across threads where the poster will be experiencing something from something else that they've narrowed down which is very strange but most users will just brush them off. It happens both online and medically when a person is a rare case of something and there may not even be the tools available to look into what is going on and little to go off of current research wise. I'd say research fraud and whatever you want to call that phenomenon the two most damaging phenomenons in medical. I think the main issue is that big medical is also big money and that translates all the way down to the doctors in the office. If they don't know what to do then they don't have time to find out so they just coldly pass the patient on because time is money. It's a complex issue because medical also needs a ton of money to be as advanced as it can be but money and other outside influences are also what is hurting it and patients too.
I have so many times across the internet over the years come across threads where the poster will be experiencing something from something else that they've narrowed down which is very strange but most users will just brush them off. It happens both online and medically when a person is a rare case of something and there may not even be the tools available to look into what is going on and little to go off of current research wise. I'd say research fraud and whatever you want to call that phenomenon the two most damaging phenomenons in medical. I think the main issue is that big medical is also big money and that translates all the way down to the doctors in the office. If they don't know what to do then they don't have time to find out so they just coldly pass the patient on because time is money. It's a complex issue because medical also needs a ton of money to be as advanced as it can be but money and other outside influences are also what is hurting it and patients too.
GreenEdge
Senior Member
- Messages
- 672
- Location
- Brisbane, Australia
I know what you mean. I've seen hundreds of real people improving on carnivore diet.
Some examples on YouTube:
- Cabaña Chronicles - Q&A: Multiple Sclerosis and the Carnivore Diet (28:54)
- Overcoming Chronic Disease: How One Man Transformed His Health with a Simple Diet (19:25)
- When Carnivore Alone Isn’t Enough - Struggling with MS, Hashimoto's, and Healing from CIRS (1:03:50)
- Dr. Visit: I Only Ate MEAT for 380 Days: Here is what Happened to My Bad Heart (12:05)
- My Autoimmune Disease Recovery: Carnivore Diet & Rheumatologist's Insights (8:33)
Thanks for sharing this GreenEdge.
My gut feeling aswell as my tinfoil hat say that the whole scholar medicine is a fraud. not that alternative medicine is any better.
everything is fraud, help your self or find the 1 genuine doctor under 999 the pharma already bought.
yeye, nice tinfoil weather it is today.
My gut feeling aswell as my tinfoil hat say that the whole scholar medicine is a fraud. not that alternative medicine is any better.
everything is fraud, help your self or find the 1 genuine doctor under 999 the pharma already bought.
yeye, nice tinfoil weather it is today.
Tinfoil hats are so hot right now.
But it's really true.
Even if you find the genuine doctor, what research can they look at and believe it's accurate? When Stanford and Harvard are faking data.
I have a friend who did a (very minor) research study. It's lightweight science funded by a manufacturer (clearly stated) and unlikely to harm anyone, but I happen to know they just made up some of the research because they didn't have time to complete the trials.
GreenEdge
Senior Member
- Messages
- 672
- Location
- Brisbane, Australia
Mary
Moderator Resource
- Messages
- 17,795
- Location
- Texas Hill Country
I've been helped on occasion by reddit. Like so many here, I've struggled with insomnia for very many years. And keep trying new things. Once I was taking NAC at night, after dinner, because of a post here saying it did something to help calm the brain or tamp down glutamate, I can't remember exactly what. And it helped for awhile so I just kept taking it. and then I started getting weird insomnia where i was half awake almost all night. It was horrible, and I checked everything I was taking and everything I ate, and no joy. And then somehow I thought to google NAC and there on reddit was a post about how it kept someone awake all night. Bingo! And I don't think I would have figured this out without reddit and that one person's experience. As soon as I stopped the NAC at night (I do fine with it in the morning), my weird awake all night insomnia went away, to go back to my usual often awful struggles to sleep.
- Messages
- 9
Only 10,000? (extreme sarcasm). To the outright frauds we can add thousands of cases where methodological biases are used to make false claims of efficacy. PACE is the example that most of us will be familiar with, but note that when NICE in the UK (finally) changed the treatment guidelines for ME/CFS they reviewed and dismissed dozens of psychosocial studies in their review. A major reason for that is that most rely on 'soft' and easily biased outcome measures such a patient surveys, rather than an objective measure.
The psychoquack brigade will claim that there are no objective tests for ME/CFS. We could dispute that, but note how they still avoid the one hard, proxy measure of any treatment's success that could be used, which is employment status/ school/ collage attendance. If something worked, even if you have no biomarkers or tests or a basic understanding, people who are recovered return to their normal lives. You can test for that at time intervals post-treatment with readily available data. It's simple but effective empiricism, but instead they always use patient surveys. Why? Because they can be biased. Hard data on whether someone is/is not back in their job can't be.
The psychoquack brigade will claim that there are no objective tests for ME/CFS. We could dispute that, but note how they still avoid the one hard, proxy measure of any treatment's success that could be used, which is employment status/ school/ collage attendance. If something worked, even if you have no biomarkers or tests or a basic understanding, people who are recovered return to their normal lives. You can test for that at time intervals post-treatment with readily available data. It's simple but effective empiricism, but instead they always use patient surveys. Why? Because they can be biased. Hard data on whether someone is/is not back in their job can't be.