59 Comments

Neil Fenton has published a perfect example of the blatant corruption and lack of desire to support truth and real science at the Lancet.

https://wherearethenumbers.substack.com/p/the-lancet-has-become-a-laughing

Expand full comment

You are very right about what is happening to young people, especially young people in our elite universities. They are ideologically driven, as are so many of the professors (read The Cancelling of the American Mind for a detailed portrayal and analysis of what is broken). And they don't know how to offer solutions, only cancel culture when they are hurt by what they hear. We have a long road to go to trust science when it is delivered ideologically and then masked as "follow the science". Remember Fauci's famous, "I am science" comment, and now the lab leak theory that he dismissed is in fact, real?

Expand full comment

Always appreciate your thoughts on these issues.

Expand full comment

The problem is that all arguments from ideology are wrong. Doesn’t matter what the ideology is. By framing your thesis on it instead of repeatable evidence you have instantly violated the scientific method. More and more we see these untestable hypotheses being trotted out as facts because they advance some ideological concept, and you can get cancelled for pointing that out.

Expand full comment

There is much validity to this post and nearly everything in medical science is aimed at discovering new information. There are very few people combing through that information for valid bits that can improve care for patients. That is the end game. There is a mountain of data supporting the idea that were can effectively slow aging and delay chronic disease development in humans now. I will be writing a series of posts on that topic. Here is the first one from today.

https://williamhbestermannjrmd.substack.com/p/slowing-down-aging-in-humans

Expand full comment

Medical 🏥 and social sciences deviated widely and firmly from truth and usefulness.

Hard sciences and economics are holding quite well though.

Expand full comment

Yes, direct fraud is a low hanging fruit easy to pinpoint. 🍎

The wider methodological fallacies are much deeper issues that are not well understood or acknowledged.

Expand full comment

For the completely fraudulent scheister, not sure what can be done beyond the current menu of professional purgatory, and criminal prosecution in the most egregious cases.

But for the ineffectual science, that has to start with FDA, and with journals. Editors need to demand better papers with less outlandish conclusions not supported by the data. And stop publishing observational flotsam in almost all cases. The FDA as the regulator simply needs to demand better studies with more clinically relevant endpoints, and simply refuse to christen anything based on silly and pointless surrogates. Insist on proper controls. Require effective blinding. And for truly novel agents or devices, it needs to require mandatory post marketing surveillance. And it needs to tie reimbursement to the provision of these data streams (and of course actually satisfactory results). There is a way….all we need is the regulatory (and political) will.

Expand full comment

You mean the FDA should fulfill the purpose for which they were created and the public erroneously assumed they were doing.

Expand full comment

The FDA was created to “regulate”….but we are now talking about the nuts and bolts of how to regulate effectively…and I doubt those details are part of any statute.

Expand full comment
Jan 17·edited Jan 17

Yes. The public incorrectly believed that, while government entities are typically inept, there was at least an effort by those in the FDA to perform their duties. What they did not expect was a complete sell-out and the resulting regulatory capture.

Expand full comment

"Science then barely helps us. Many studies lack controls. Many are hopelessly flawed with confounding or bias. Most academics create causal conclusions that aren’t true. Even when they are true, they can’t be scaled. They don’t work when you apply it writ large. This has been called the efficacy effectiveness gap."

How are studies that are this flawed getting published in journals that are considered reputable?

Expand full comment

The medical journals are hopelessly conflicted and have been for sometime. Past editors of the NEJM and the BMJ resigned in protest of this fact. It is not just advertising but pharma companies fund the studies that are the content the journals sell.

https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138

Expand full comment

See my 2010 paper Avery GH. (2010) Scientific Misconduct: The Perversion of Scientific Evidence for Policy Advocacy. World Medical and Health Policy, 2(4):17-31.

Expand full comment

A tremendously insightful article, with application beyond science. Thank you!

I just read the Inflation Reduction Act passed in 2022, didn't envision the transmission lines that would be needed to connect the renewable energy projects funded by the act, to the electric grid. Looks like a bunch of smart people forgot, or didn't know, how things work. https://wirepoints.org/progressive-lawmakers-line-up-behind-costly-fix-for-error-they-made-in-renewable-energy-plan-wirepoints/

It seems fitting that the end of the proposed legislation to fix this, includes an amendment to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The amendment includes a prohibition for discrimination based on *disparate impact*. After decades of experience, my definition of disparate impact is - We passed a rule and we didn't get the effect we wanted, so *you* must be wrong. The people that defined the rule never seemed to understand how things actually work. They would then pass another rule without understanding why the first rule didn't work. The outcome was always a layer cake of failure, or 'disparate impact'.

Expand full comment

"The sad truth is nearly none of science is true and useful."

Just ... no. That's as unintelligent and undiscriminating and prejudicial as saying science is always "right". In the current climate, we need more skepticism, NOT nihilism!

Expand full comment

Agree. It's a complete bullshit statement. What the fuck is true and useful anyway?

Expand full comment

Thank you for your bravery doctor Prasad

Expand full comment

“So, as much as I appreciate Freakonomics, I wish we talked more about the deeper problem in science.”

Well shoot. I’m going to take that as an invite and start talking.

The deeper problem in science is not science. The scientific method works. The process of OBJECTIVELY establishing facts through testing and experimentation is what we want.

The problems are (1) human beings and (2) the corrupt system. Sociopaths rise to the top and gain control over those with even the slightest impurity of character. Their will gets broken. They become docile and obedient. Blind obedience is exalted. Only those with robust moral fortitude remain autonomous but they get punished, expelled. They are the slim minority anyway. Human vulnerability to greed and ego precludes objectivity within the individual and thus, the self sustaining system.

https://www.recoveryplusjournal.com/2017/10/the-empathy-trap/

Post nominal initials do not equate to objectivity. We need to stop pretending “writings” produced by heavily biased individuals being paid for the specific purpose of arriving at a pre intended conclusion is science. No objectivity, no science. Only a manipulative pile of shit and I don’t care how much they flex their vocabulary or how many post nominal initials they pile up as authors. And that’s the majority of medical science because it’s either being funded by big pharma or corrupted government.

How do I corrupt thee? Let me count the ways. Examples in next comment, because I get fired up and can’t shut up. This is already a long comment.

Expand full comment
deletedJan 17
Comment deleted
Expand full comment
deletedJan 17
Comment deleted
Expand full comment

https://substack.com/profile/117037158-athina-kaviris/note/c-39689708?r=1xoig6&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action

For the love of God, I wish someone else would look at the data and do their own math. I deliberately made an elementary school style science project to present to our school board when they decided to mandate it on the kids.

Ok, the third thing they do. A Doctor gets his own funding, uses his own data, publishes a peer reviewed scientific study with findings that are contrary to the accepted narrative but can not be refuted. Now what?

https://thehighwire.com/ark-videos/vaccine-study-costs-doctor-his-license/

Persecuting a Doctor and stripping them of their license for honestly revealing what the data show does not sound like the scientific method to me. That sounds like a corrupt system run by morally depraved individuals who should burn in hell.

If you actually read all this, thank you. Most sincerely.🙏🙏🙏

Expand full comment

Important: I’m not telling you all this because I think you don’t already know. Obviously you do. What I’m trying to illustrate is, the problem is so bad that (me) a ski instructor can figure it out. And I suppose I do fault our society in general because we’re the ones sitting here accepting it. But I understand. I understand why individuals within the system comply and also why the general public does as well.

This is what I do about it.

I leave long comments.

Because I don’t know what else I can do.

Expand full comment

https://youtu.be/qxr-cv-JuI8?si=MGRSDRWMUpYAEaWB

I’m pretty sure throwing data in the trash, changing the study design after it started to try to cook the data, or searching out “good data” before you start is not “science”. The CDC seems to have a habit of doing that but let’s move on. Now what if after they’ve collected the data, it shows the opposite of what they’re being paid to prove but they don’t want to do any of the above. What can they do? Well, you can write a title that says the opposite of what the data is showing and make sure you have an overwhelming list of PhDs signed on as authors so no one questions you. How the hell they come out with a study with data that shows the number of patients hospitalized during Delta (both with Delta and other diseases) were well over 90% vaccinated and then claim the opposite without getting busting is beyond me. Link coming in next comment.

Expand full comment

publish or perish - most journal articles are worthless even if they are accurate

Expand full comment

The “misinformation” leads to an increased call for censorship of dissenters...crazy world we are observing. The institutes of “trust” are destroying themselves by their own actions...thanks for your good work.

Expand full comment