As we continue to discover just how bad and extensive is the problem, we are also beginning to discover the myriad ways by which the errors occur or deceits created. This is an interesting one.
Let's talk about statistical manipulation of results in clinical trials.
— Alexandros Marinos 🏴☠️ (@alexandrosM) August 29, 2023
Some times it can be so devious that it takes years to be noticed.
I want to walk you through something I **just** noticed in the ACTIV-6 trial for (what else) ivermectin.
Please stick with me.
If Marinos is correct, it is interesting because it turns virtually the entire world of academia on its head.
Ideally, we ought to be able to assume that research is conducted in good faith and reasonable diligence and rigor. We ought to be able to assume that the results should be able to be accepted at face value. Errors will obviously manifest on occasion but as a relatively rare occurrence.
Where we are heading is that we should assume most of research generated is wrong and that a material portion of it will be deceitfully wrong.
Which puts us in the position that no research should be accepted until thoroughly and skeptically assessed. Marinos's example shows just how thoroughly it needs to be done. The error the researchers committed was neither apparent nor obvious. It was a subtle, implied decision hidden in a morass of detail, papered over with inaccurate verbiage. You would not find their error unless you assumed that an error had occurred and actively went searching for it.
The Academia, as an institution, is pushing us away from the desirable position that all research is innocent and accurate till proven false, to the much less desirable position that all research is error-ridden and deceptive until proven true.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment