- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
More Scandal at Harvard
Posted on 2/15/24 at 4:48 am
Posted on 2/15/24 at 4:48 am
Taking this from a youtube channel that has detailed a lot of academic stuff in the past, Pete Judo. YouTube 15 minutes
One of the take home points from the issues below is that peer review is pretty much broken and I consider it to be garbage. It's a terrible system and it needs a total overhaul.
Harvard's cancer lab, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, has some issues. Before going further, I want to point out that these types of issues are rampant throughout the research universe. If you visit sites like Retraction Watch or Pub Peer, you'll see this stuff is far more common than you ever imagined. Not only is this a "simple" integrity issue, bad research costs us money and time, and in a clinical context, those are obviously precious resources. We already have a lot of barriers to progress, for example the American Cancer Institute has estimated that it costs us $50M per year because we don't preserve specimens so they can be looked at later as investigative techniques get better and so forth (yes I have a plan for that). Fraud and similar behavior just makes things far worse.
Back to Harvard...this latest scandal at the cancer institute seems to revolve around 4 researchers, and has caused 31 corrections and 6 retractions.
Oh but there's more. Khalid Shah is a researcher at Harvard at the med school. Dozens of allegations for research misconduct. He's a cancer researcher, particularly stem cell therapy.
In a lot of research you do a western blot or a stain of some sort and essentially you get a result that is an image - like a picture that shows density of some substance, or the drift of something through gel based on reactivity or weight or some factor etc etc etc. Image manipulation is rampant in research.
Shah and a lot of co-authors published a paper suggesting they'd invented / created a cell line that could be injected in the area of a tumor, it would kill the tumor then with programmed cell death, it would go away. Pretty big breakthrough if true.
Pet Judo shows how an image was taken from a separate paper and pasted into this Shah paper discussed above.
The image below is from the video - the paper on the right is Shah's paper. You can see he highlights another paper where the image was lifted from. This happened multiple times.
Shah seems to have also lifted images from other papers he published and put them in that paper. In other portions, Shah used product photos from the web (products being cell lines) and inserted them into the paper.
Image issues were present in more than just this Shah paper. Pete Judo also covers the Stanford president and a Nobel winner who had image issues related to western blot analysis.
Pete Judo interviews a woman that has been responsible for finding a lot of these image issues. She mentions software that is helpful - I bring this up because that billionaire that has declared war on these faculty members at places like Harvard - you can imagine the team of people and software that he can buy, and what he can expose if he chooses to do so.
Academia really is broken.
One of the take home points from the issues below is that peer review is pretty much broken and I consider it to be garbage. It's a terrible system and it needs a total overhaul.
Harvard's cancer lab, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, has some issues. Before going further, I want to point out that these types of issues are rampant throughout the research universe. If you visit sites like Retraction Watch or Pub Peer, you'll see this stuff is far more common than you ever imagined. Not only is this a "simple" integrity issue, bad research costs us money and time, and in a clinical context, those are obviously precious resources. We already have a lot of barriers to progress, for example the American Cancer Institute has estimated that it costs us $50M per year because we don't preserve specimens so they can be looked at later as investigative techniques get better and so forth (yes I have a plan for that). Fraud and similar behavior just makes things far worse.
Back to Harvard...this latest scandal at the cancer institute seems to revolve around 4 researchers, and has caused 31 corrections and 6 retractions.
Oh but there's more. Khalid Shah is a researcher at Harvard at the med school. Dozens of allegations for research misconduct. He's a cancer researcher, particularly stem cell therapy.
In a lot of research you do a western blot or a stain of some sort and essentially you get a result that is an image - like a picture that shows density of some substance, or the drift of something through gel based on reactivity or weight or some factor etc etc etc. Image manipulation is rampant in research.
Shah and a lot of co-authors published a paper suggesting they'd invented / created a cell line that could be injected in the area of a tumor, it would kill the tumor then with programmed cell death, it would go away. Pretty big breakthrough if true.
Pet Judo shows how an image was taken from a separate paper and pasted into this Shah paper discussed above.
The image below is from the video - the paper on the right is Shah's paper. You can see he highlights another paper where the image was lifted from. This happened multiple times.
Shah seems to have also lifted images from other papers he published and put them in that paper. In other portions, Shah used product photos from the web (products being cell lines) and inserted them into the paper.
Image issues were present in more than just this Shah paper. Pete Judo also covers the Stanford president and a Nobel winner who had image issues related to western blot analysis.
Pete Judo interviews a woman that has been responsible for finding a lot of these image issues. She mentions software that is helpful - I bring this up because that billionaire that has declared war on these faculty members at places like Harvard - you can imagine the team of people and software that he can buy, and what he can expose if he chooses to do so.
Academia really is broken.
8
Posted on 2/15/24 at 4:50 am to POTUS2024
Academia has been grifting the American public likely from the very start.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 4:52 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Academia really is broken.
AI will finish it off.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 6:05 am to POTUS2024
quote:
One of the take home points from the issues below is that peer review is pretty much broken and I consider it to be garbage. It's a terrible system and it needs a total overhaul.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 6:08 am to POTUS2024
Trust your doctors, oh and the purple haired lefty on Facebook shouting peer reviewed!
Posted on 2/15/24 at 6:11 am to POTUS2024
I'm pretty sure all of the professors/department heads there just plagiarized everything and were given their jobs because of their race and gender. Imagine paying 60k a year for that shite 
Posted on 2/15/24 at 6:38 am to cadillacattack
Between this, all those back surgeries that shouldn’t have been done, doctors causing the opioid crises, and COVID retardation, you can’t trust the medical establishment.
These are just a few examples.
These are just a few examples.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 6:48 am to POTUS2024
This is nothing new.
Academia is about publishing shite, and getting grants, and getting that shite you published cited.
We could fix many issues by tieing lots of research funding to industry toe ins.
As in a cancer researcher collaborates with say Merck. Merck gives him $1 million. NIH then matches that $1 million 2:1 or whatever.
I realize lots of research is basic science and wouldn't apply to collaboration with industry, but much would.
Academia is about publishing shite, and getting grants, and getting that shite you published cited.
We could fix many issues by tieing lots of research funding to industry toe ins.
As in a cancer researcher collaborates with say Merck. Merck gives him $1 million. NIH then matches that $1 million 2:1 or whatever.
I realize lots of research is basic science and wouldn't apply to collaboration with industry, but much would.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 7:11 am to Privateer 2007
Anyone committing research fraud in which lifesaving treatments or techniques are falsified and then used on the public should result in those researchers being used as lab animals.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 7:23 am to Privateer 2007
You have no idea how bad it actually is in medicine and drug development.
If you want to get irate, look into the roots of the Rockefeller family and how they influenced and still define modern American medicine, pharmaceutical development as well as the food pyramid/FDA.
We are fat and unhealthy because we’re fed food they know will make us sick so they can treat us with poison they know isn’t a cure.
All the same is true of mental health and the Rockefeller family is partially to blame there as well. Check the quotes from them on the true intent of the feminist movement.
If you want to get irate, look into the roots of the Rockefeller family and how they influenced and still define modern American medicine, pharmaceutical development as well as the food pyramid/FDA.
We are fat and unhealthy because we’re fed food they know will make us sick so they can treat us with poison they know isn’t a cure.
All the same is true of mental health and the Rockefeller family is partially to blame there as well. Check the quotes from them on the true intent of the feminist movement.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 7:24 am to cadillacattack
Back in 2005, this article really pissed off a lot of people, but since then, the problems have only gotten worse, IMO.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
full text link at pubmed
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
John P. A. Ioannidis
Summary
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field. In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance. Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.
full text link at pubmed
Posted on 2/15/24 at 7:25 am to tide06
quote:
All the same is true of mental health and the Rockefeller family is partially to blame there as well. Check the quotes from them on the true intent of the feminist movement.
Do you have any links, I'd like to see that stuff. Thanks
Posted on 2/15/24 at 7:29 am to POTUS2024
I wonder what percentage of academic research is complete bull shite.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 7:57 am to LuckyTiger
Probably an extremely high percentage.
Research topics tend to be doled out to professors and researchers from someone at the top of the department and I’m sure that the top of the department is getting their marching orders from the money men, be they government, private sector, or interest groups, who want something out there with the academic backing of that school.
Research topics tend to be doled out to professors and researchers from someone at the top of the department and I’m sure that the top of the department is getting their marching orders from the money men, be they government, private sector, or interest groups, who want something out there with the academic backing of that school.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 8:09 am to LuckyTiger
quote:
I wonder what percentage of academic research is complete bull shite.
A pretty good amount. The replication crisis really hit psychology hard and the psych community really got their jimmies rustled, but other disciplines in biomed are also jacked up.
This is from wiki's Replication Crisis page:
August 2015, the first open empirical study of reproducibility in psychology was published, called The Reproducibility Project: Psychology. Coordinated by psychologist Brian Nosek, researchers redid 100 studies in psychological science from three high-ranking psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and Psychological Science). 97 of the original studies had significant effects, but of those 97, only 36% of the replications yielded significant findings (p value below 0.05).[11] The mean effect size in the replications was approximately half the magnitude of the effects reported in the original studies. The same paper examined the reproducibility rates and effect sizes by journal and discipline. Study replication rates were 23% for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48% for Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, and 38% for Psychological Science. Studies in the field of cognitive psychology had a higher replication rate (50%) than studies in the field of social psychology (25%).[69]
A study published in 2018 in Nature Human Behaviour replicated 21 social and behavioral science papers from Nature and Science, finding that only about 62% could successfully reproduce original results.[70][71]
NIH has had some initiatives to increase rigor but they don't really do anything.
Research requires a complete overhaul.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 8:12 am to SaintsTiger
quote:Try government, the Joint Commission, the media and their push for pain to be the "fifth vital sign."
doctors causing the opioid crises
Posted on 2/15/24 at 8:23 am to POTUS2024
quote:
Do you have any links, I'd like to see that stuff. Thanks
There are better sources out there but this sums it up. Have to get to some meetings but I promise if you start digging on them it will change your entire understanding of the origins of our modern health care system:
YT - Rockefeller Origins of Feminist Movement
Same stuff with abortion and Margaret Sanger. Wild stuff you never hear about on MSM and it’s all in their own words.
Posted on 2/15/24 at 12:23 pm to POTUS2024
I think the “publish or perish” mentality of academia results in a lot of crap being put out there just to say you published something.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News