onewheeldave Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Ah PLOS that thing where anyone can pay their money and publich whatever they like, regardless of the wackiness... Any chance of a reputable source? John P. A. Ioannidis (born August 21, 1965 in New York City) is a Professor of Medicine and of Health Research and Policy at Stanford University School of Medicine and a Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences. He is director of the Stanford Prevention Research Center, and co-director, along with Steven N. Goodman, of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS).[1][2] He was chairman at the Department of Hygiene and Epidemiology, University of Ioannina School of Medicine as well as adjunct professor at Tufts University School of Medicine.[3][4] He is best known for his research and published papers on scientific studies, particularly the 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False".[5] Ioannidis is one of the most-cited scientists across the scientific literature, especially in the fields of clinical medicine and social sciences, according to Thomson Reuters' Highly Cited Researchers 2015He seems reliable. What have you done in the field? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I know, never said it did. Strawman. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 19:47 ---------- You wanted a paper critical of the status quo where medical testing is concerned. If you're not happy with it fair enough. Could you please supply one? I know that you think it proves your point, but as others have said above that paper in no way demonstrates what you think it does. If you want to see what medical research dishonest actually does look like this is the sort of thing..... google for Hwang Woo-Suk https://web.archive.org/web/20051230170320/http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200512/kt2005121916411411780.htm It exists. Of course it does. But wholesale and systemic as you claim? No. The scientific method is exceedingly good at weeding out people who are being dishonest. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:01 ---------- He seems reliable. What have you done in the field? Irrelevant. The paper you cite DOES NOT make the claims that you wish it to. If you think it does please walk us through where it supports your assertions and why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Strawman my foot. Your reference does not support the idea of corruption in the study system. Such studies are clearly the best information available. All it does is suggest that one should not draw firm conclusions from individual studies, and that more rigorous and larger studies are preferable. It supports nothing at all that you have said. Why did you reference it? I'm the first to say that peer review is not validation. In fact I did say so earlier in this thread. That's a world away from saying that anecdotes are superior. The solution would be for journals to raise standards for accepting publications. Not to declare the entire system worthless and resort to radically inferior means of finding the truth. I didn't post it for any reason other than the one stated. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:07 ---------- If you want to see what medical research dishonest actually does look like this is the sort of thing..... google for Hwang Woo-Suk https://web.archive.org/web/20051230170320/http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/tech/200512/kt2005121916411411780.htm It exists. Of course it does. But wholesale and systemic as you claim? No. The scientific method is exceedingly good at weeding out people who are being dishonest. It's Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, making that claim. Perhaps you should offer to give him one of your lessons in scientific method? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I didn't post it for any reason other than the one stated. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:07 ---------- It's Dr. Peter Gotzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, making that claim. Perhaps you should offer to give him one of your lessons in scientific method? What claim is he making? Because despite asking you a great deal you still havent told us or given us any evidence that he is making such a claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Irrelevant. The paper you cite DOES NOT make the claims that you wish it to. If you think it does please walk us through where it supports your assertions and why. Tell me what claims it is you think I wish them to be. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:35 ---------- What claim is he making? Because despite asking you a great deal you still havent told us or given us any evidence that he is making such a claim. If I can find you a relevant video of him speaking, would that suffice? Would seeing him actually speaking his claims count as evidence for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eric Arthur Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Oh so reliable and standardised IQ tests yeah. You performed well on an IQ test, and have translated that to 'I am the logic champion' and everyone who disagrees with me on the internet is '"logically challenged" and "of low intellect". Dunning Kruger thown into sharp focus there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Tell me what claims it is you think I wish them to be. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:35 ---------- If I can find you a relevant video of him speaking, would that suffice? Would seeing him actually speaking his claims count as evidence for you? I think it's best if you state what YOU are claiming and then present the evidence which you have that supports it. We can then decide. ---------- Post added 23-02-2016 at 20:47 ---------- Dunning Kruger thown into sharp focus there Yup as I noted before. It's rather striking isnt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MAC33 Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Dr Russell Blaylock on vaccination. With such a wealth of experience in the medical field,not sure how people can dismiss his views. Certainly not without doing your research first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onewheeldave Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 I think it's best if you state what YOU are claiming and then present the evidence which you have that supports it. We can then decide. No, no. I asked first Tell me what claims it is you think I wish them to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted February 23, 2016 Share Posted February 23, 2016 Well we will start with #120 where you said Our 'scientific study system' however, I have diminishing respect for with each passing year. Unlike scientific method, our study system produces obscuration and confusion. It was used by the tobacco companies to produce obscuration and confusion, it's currently being used by the food industry and political lobbyists for the same purpose. So please. Lets have your arguments in a cogent, reasoned form backed up by the evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now