SEARCH
Scientific Studies are Mostly False
Related: cognitive commitment, cognitive dissonance, confirmation bias, ethics in medicine, follow the money, follow the self-interest, gear, gears of the machine, peer review, Religion Masquerading as Science, scientific fraud, unsettled science, woke psychopathology
re: follow the money
re: ethics in medicine
re: unsettled science
re: peer review
re: gears of the machine
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it.
This page is intended as a primer pointing out the dismal state of scientific studies, focusing mostly on medicine. Numerous links are possible, but the best and most approachable ones are found here.
Tip: when you see “a new study finds...”, translate that into “a new steaming pile of manure...” and you will have better odds than 99% of the population at getting things right. The field doesn’t matter.
Reality of science today
Bad science is not new. At the least, follow the money will never lead you wrong, even when it shouldn’t work.
Here in 2024, this rigorous 2005 Ioannidis paper is more relevant than ever:s
Ioannidis: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False <=== 2005
“for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias...”
Here’s a sampler of the dismal crediblity of 'science' today:
“follow the science” ==> narrative propaganda
‘Replication crisis’ spurs reforms in how science studies are done
WSJ: The ‘Hurtful’ Idea of Scientific Merit
BMJ: Time to Assume That Health Research Is Fraudulent Until Proven Otherwise?
Dr Malcom Kendrick: “Covid19 – the final nail in coffin of medical research”
Peer Review of Scientific Papers: Impedes Science by Rejecting Papers Outside the Narrative?
How to game the system
In addition to outright fraud (common), there are numerous ways to game the system. Once you understand the gears of the machine, things will start making sense.
Sebastian Rushworth MD: How to understand scientific studies (in health and medicine)
Spasmodic Dysphonia: Big Tech + Big Medicine Suppress the Truth, Likely Leading to Suicides
CDC Embeds Big Pharma PR Firms
Competence
The credibility of scientific studies should first be evaluated not from a science/medical viewpoint, but from a skeptical/pyschological viewpoint including follow the money eg funding and connections, psychological biases and motivations, bad methodology, etc. How many peer reviews skip that step entirely? Probably all of them.
Sebastian Rushworth MD: How Well do Doctors Understand Probability?
Religion Masquerading as Science: the new Messiahs of Pagan Idolatry
