Scientists have discovered... No, they lied!
Confessions of a British scientist: 60% of high–profile medical discoveries are liesLev Pukhlykh, AIF, 07.07.2010
John Ioannidis, an infectious diseases specialist and part-time scientific analyst, has inspected hundreds of publications in various medical journals. The purpose of such a large–scale work was to find out how loud statements like "soda causes cancer" and "curry cures all diseases" correspond to reality. And also – who or what is guilty of errors and scientific inaccuracies.
As a result, it turned out that more than 60% (!) of discoveries, studies and tests, the results of which appear on the pages of reputable scientific journals, are refuted after some time! And this is despite the fact that Ioannidis managed to get acquainted with a maximum of one tenth of 1% of all medical articles published in the world over the past few years. If the researcher had a whole staff of readers at his disposal, the results of the analysis could be much more frightening, the doctor is sure.
So why do so many lies pour out on the pages of the intelligent and serious press, which is trusted (and, moreover, guided by) many practicing doctors around the world? Is this happening intentionally or not? And is it possible to separate the wheat from the chaff? Ioannidis cited the most common causes of errors and explained the mechanism of their occurrence.
Reason 1. Outright liesYes, a scientific degree does not prevent workers from various fields of science from simply lying.
The most revealing in this sense is the case of South Korean researcher Woo Suk Hwang, who claimed that he allegedly cloned human stem cells in 2005.
Another example is the "amazing discovery" of oncologist William Summerlin. He conducted experiments on skin grafting on mice and one day showed the world proof of his success. They were white mice with square black spots – they say, this geometric coloring was the result of a successful transplant. However, it later turned out that the spots appeared on the skins of mice thanks to... a felt-tip pen.
Why paint mice at the risk of becoming a laughing stock? It's very simple, Ioannidis explains: theorists need to publish the results of their work and make them as loud as possible in order to keep their careers afloat and receive cash subsidies. In an anonymous survey conducted among 3,200 British scientists, one in three admitted that they had falsified the results of experiments at least once in their lives.
Reason 2. Elimination of "objectionable" dataData manipulation – intentional or not – happens in science all the time.
Sometimes – because of a laboratory assistant's mistake, sometimes because of wear and tear or equipment malfunction, sometimes because some patient forgets to take a pill on time or lies about his health in the questionnaire.
But it happens, of course, that the researchers themselves turn a blind eye to data that diverge from the desired result. Since scientists have to calculate hundreds of options and factors in medical experiments, many of them give contradictory indicators. Some confirm the theory being tested, others have nothing to do with it, and still others can refute it altogether. Naturally, any ambitious doctor is tempted to keep silent about unpleasant information and expose as indicative the one that pleases him.
Thus, a colleague of Ioannidis, Douglas Altman, who heads the Center for Medical Statistics in Oxford, claims that most pharmaceutical research is more or less falsified. After analyzing the documentation of more than 100 pharmaceutical laboratories, he found that chemists either "do not pay attention" to unsuccessful trials of their drugs, or do not make public facts that may cast doubt on the effectiveness of the drug. Out of 74 tests of various antidepressants conducted over the past 2 years, the results of 23 have not been released, and all because they gave results that were unpleasant for manufacturers. In fact, they have shown that these pills are no more effective than a lump of sugar.
Reason 3. Incorrect selection of patientsAnother problem of pharmaceutical testers is a mistake with a group of test subjects.
Often tests are carried out not on those who will need the drug in reality, but on those who just need money. After all, the developer company pays all the subjects for playing the role of a "test rat", and either the hopelessly ill and disabled, or the perfectly healthy, or just homeless, beggars and alcoholics are looking for this easy money.
Another case is the generalization of the results, regardless of the composition of the experimenters. The drug can be tested on young women – and the tests will give positive results, but for older men or children, the same drug will be "like peas against the wall." Scientists, inspired by their success, hurry to declare that they have found a panacea.
Reason 4. Exaggeration of resultsLong-term studies involving a large group of people are particularly susceptible to this error.
Within a few years, significant (or not very) changes may occur in a person's condition, but they will not be related to the subject of study in any way. For example, a subject can naturally lose weight, get rid of insomnia or get an ulcer – and the more people in the group, the more likely it is that he will not be alone.
What about our scientists? It's over, they rejoice and hurry to announce to the whole world that they have found the healthiest way to lose weight, the best way to sleep well or the most important factor that causes ulcers. And even if the purpose of scientific work was to develop, for example, a cure for constipation, the original tasks will be immediately forgotten, and another sensational article will appear in a scientific journal.
– This is the same as throwing darts at a bare wall, and then putting a target under them, – quotes Douglas Altman Daily Mail. According to him, in about 50% of cases, the stated goals of scientific work differ from the final results and what is published in the media.
Reason 5. Experiments on ratsIn 2006, a major scandal broke out during trials of a leukemia drug at Northwick Park Hospital (Great Britain).
Animal tests were more than successful, but six bipedal volunteers, whose dose of medication was reduced 500 (!) times, almost died as a result of the tests.
As Ioannidis states, medicine has become too dependent on our smaller brothers. Most of the discoveries and successful studies that we read about in the media are based on experiments on mice or even flies, because they are easy to breed and keep. However, their physiological similarity to humans is not so great as to automatically transfer all the results to homo sapiens. According to Ioannidis' calculations, 75% of drugs successfully tested on laboratory animals then fail in human tests.
Portal "Eternal youth" http://vechnayamolodost.ru08.07.2010