Many
Cancer Studies Are Actually Unreliable? Are you surprised? Definitively
not: it is very logical and expectable due to the majority of trials are
conducted by Big Pharma and their
intellectual efforts in the field of research and science is
very limited. We have already proven
that the research which is conducted by Big Pharma or academia (sponsored or
patronized by Big Pharma) simulates the real investigations of the Nature.
“Over the past decade, before pursuing a particular
line of research, scientists (including C.G.B.) in the haematology and oncology
department at the biotechnology firm Amgen in Thousand Oaks, California, tried
to confirm published findings related to that work. Fifty-three papers were
deemed ‘landmark’ studies (see ‘Reproducibility of research findings’). It was
acknowledged from the outset that some of the data might not hold up, because
papers were deliberately selected that described something completely new, such
as fresh approaches to targeting cancers or alternative clinical uses for
existing therapeutics. Nevertheless, scientific findings were confirmed in only
6 (11%) cases. Even knowing the limitations of preclinical research, this was a
shocking result.”
Only 11%!
It is not funny anymore! Sure, it is shocking for those who do not understand the new rules of Big
Pharma game. Academia and Big Pharma are involved in production of simulacra
and it is not surprised that their “research” is not reproducible (i.e. ontologically
consistent). And it was already discussed earlier:
Unfortunately, Amgen’s findings are consistent with
those of others in industry. A team at Bayer HealthCare in Germany last year
reported4 that only about 25% of published preclinical studies could be
validated to the point at which projects could continue.
The author
is trying to describe the process of the simulacra production:
What reasons underlie the publication of erroneous,
selective or irreproducible data? The academic system and peer-review process tolerates
and perhaps even inadvertently encourages such conduct5. To obtain funding, a
job, promotion or tenure, researchers need a strong publication record, often including
a first-authored high-impact publication. Journal editors, reviewers and grant-review
committees often look for a scientific finding that is simple, clear and complete
— a ‘perfect’ story. It is therefore tempting for investigators to submit
selected data sets for publication, or even to massage data to fit the
underlying hypothesis.
The key
words here are: “perfect story” and “data massage” – they are very important to
the production
of the miracle cure against cancer: the compound X inhibits receptor Y and
in this way interacts the pathway Z etc etc.
Well, but
what does the author propose? Guess what? More research, more work, more time
and more money! Perfect – now there will be no choice even for simulated
research to reach clinical trials! It will be even harder to cross the Valley
of Death! But not for partisans
of Valley of Death who know the situation and will use their knowledge to make
huge profits.
No comments:
Post a Comment