Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

More fake science. The Lancet is the major medical journal in Britain -- not small potatoes.

And this is about oral cancer, a quite serious issue.

1 posted on 01/24/2006 6:05:17 PM PST by tallhappy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Gabz; SheLion

Maybe this will lead to more admissions.


2 posted on 01/24/2006 6:07:59 PM PST by Just A Nobody (I - LOVE - my attitude problem! WBB lives on. Beware the Enemedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy
It is also not clear what his 13 co-authors knew about the fraud — the paper identifies three others as contributing equally to the research, and among the other co-authors are Sudbø's wife and his identical twin. None of the authors could be reached for comment.

Maybe they don't exist either.

The real story here is the astounding degree to which some of the major medical journals have abandoned any pretense of service to science, in favor of advocacy journalism parroting the left-wing political meme of the week.

-ccm

8 posted on 01/24/2006 6:21:18 PM PST by ccmay (Too much Law; not enough Order)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy
More fake science. The Lancet is the major medical journal in Britain -- not small potatoes.

The Lancet,along with the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal Of The American Medical Association are the three most widely read and highly respected medical periodicals in the world.

Given this,the physician involved could have seriously harmed many by means of his deception.

9 posted on 01/24/2006 6:21:22 PM PST by Gay State Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy
A Norwegian researcher dreamed up the lives and lifestyles of some 900 people — and used them in a study on cancer. Then, last October, Jon Sudbø had his results published in The Lancet.

Now he can move on to environmental science and global warming.

11 posted on 01/24/2006 6:26:10 PM PST by RJL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy
There is some indication that Sudbø may have mental health problems.

But he's sane enough to know he can hide out and draw a salary in academia.
12 posted on 01/24/2006 6:27:05 PM PST by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy

when is the world going to wake up to the fact that liberal scientists have been making up data for 50 years, to forward their agendas.

am I the only one not surprised by this? my whole life it's been something is good for you... followed by no.. it's gonna kill you! one fake study after another promising the moon. Meanwhile I just live my life the way I wish, eat what I want in moderation, do what I want, and never get sick, and stay happy and healthy all the time, while shaking my head at all the idiots that run from one fad to another or spend their entire lives eating rice cakes or on a machine in the gym.


13 posted on 01/24/2006 6:31:53 PM PST by conservative physics
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy

Dan rather insists that results are still accurate!


14 posted on 01/24/2006 6:33:03 PM PST by flashbunny (Are you annoying ME? Are you annoying ME? You must be annoying me, since there's no one else here!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: grey_whiskers

Thought this might be interesting.


16 posted on 01/24/2006 6:38:00 PM PST by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy

Yep. Thing is, peer review for publication is not really set up to detect when the entire body of data is falsified. It does detect flaws in theory, terminology, and overall grasp of the subject matter, but without recreating the entire procedure for gathering the raw data one is left with spot-checks and trust. This isn't the first time and won't be the last.


19 posted on 01/24/2006 6:39:32 PM PST by Billthedrill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy

It appears that his employers were the first to catch the fraud. If so, good for them.


27 posted on 01/24/2006 7:12:34 PM PST by Senator Bedfellow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy

but but but the peer review process....


29 posted on 01/24/2006 7:37:01 PM PST by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy

Tip of the iceberg.

How can a person write ten scientific papers in a year?

Or, like Richard Darsee of the late 1970s, the Golden Boy of the New England Journal of Medicine, who 'wrote' some twenty animal and human experimental studies per year. He was destined for greatness until it was discovered that he had completely fabricated everything in several papers.

Well, nowadays that is pretty common. A colleague of mine was asked to put down what he 'wrote' in the past year and it was something like 15 papers and book chapters and 10 separate lectures.

You never see these guys in the building after 5 or on the weekends.

You see 10-20 co-authors on many papers. That may be the only authentic thing on some of these papers -- the long list of poseurs, who claim co-authorship for purposes of careerism, well, they are probably stone real persons, to a man.

I ask you: How much can a person contribute, at a minimum, if he is one of 20 authors, to a typical 7-page paper, that took maybe two weeks to write? Especially when each author probably had another 19 ongoing 'projects' at a time?

Remember the dude most on the international hot-seat now; the South Korean researcher who fabricated that he basically had found the fountain of youth, stem-cell-wise: He was an established researcher with lots of papers already accepted by many, many, big time journals. He had been getting money for years from various research agencies (or he would not be a senior researcher in a university). HE didn't just start fabricating things in 2005... chances are he had been fabricating stuff his whole career.

Now imagine how difficult and expensive it would be to catch just ONE bogus study, or paper, given that most are so arcane that, true or false, it just doesn't matter. Who would want to bother checking the veracity and authenticity of a study, no matter how obscure. Who would have the time or money to do that? No one.

That is why I say: Tip of the iceberg.

The funniest thing is to hear the typical sanctimonious and hypocritical scientist who is quoted after something like this is made public: "How dare this man debase the trust and honor of the whole world of scholars, releasing this paper on the world, and defiling the virgin snow of scientific papers that have gone before?"

Right....


41 posted on 01/24/2006 8:58:29 PM PST by caddie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy

Reminds me of the study showing brain damage from one dose of Ecstasy. Then they found out the Doc in charge was injecting the chimps with pure methamphetamine.


47 posted on 01/25/2006 6:43:19 AM PST by Wolfie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: trisham

Ego clouding integrity.



I'm sure he's not alone.


54 posted on 01/25/2006 7:27:24 AM PST by wallcrawlr (http://www.bionicear.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: tallhappy
British Muslims doctors are trying to be jihadists and now these egregious political lies by Britains's most 'respected' medical publication?

Something is very, very rotten in Great Britain.

61 posted on 09/17/2007 8:06:00 PM PDT by Post Toasties (It's not a smear if it's true.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson