NY Times Mar 10, 2009:
21 published articles of clinical trials since 1996 by one western researcher were fraudulent.
Let's see, your point is evidently "We can't trust research, let's rely on testimonials."
No, that can't be your point - since you've been busy listing research articles in the natto thread that you think support the wide-ranging claims made for that fermented soybean product.
Maybe your point is that Western research is uniquely untrustworthy. No, that won't fly either.
"Research fraud rampant in China; A Chinese study found that 60 percent of PhD candidates admitted to plagiarism, bribery."
China is also the source of a great deal of published research praising acupuncture and Chinese herbal medicine.
Standards for assuring quality of published research are minimal in China compared to the West.
Maybe you think that Japanese research (like the work done on natto) is uniquely free of any possible taint. Oops, not so.
"(A)University of Tokyo committee has concluded that an experiment published by biochemist Kazunari Taira is not reproducible, vindicating many scientists who had challenged Taira's work. Many of the Japanese are now calling for clearer guidelines on dealing with fraud and in response to the Taira case, the government's Council for Science and Technology Policy stated that it would consider measures to tackle it."
Maybe your point is that any instance of fraud or plagiarism in research invalidates the entire body of scientific research. Well, that doesn't make sense, since such cases, while regrettable, involve a tiny minority of scientists and are dealt with severely when uncovered.
Maybe your point is that any research is fine as long as it supports what you want it to, but can be dismissed if doesn't exist on the subject in question, or outright disproves those claims.
Or is there a point I've missed?
To save others time in looking this story up, here's a link to a commentary on the case.
It involves the field of anesthesiology, and a researcher who's believed to have concocted data to support multi-modal analgesia. This will create a mess as a lot of research will have to be redone and rechecked, and if allegations are true represents a betrayal of the field of anesthesiology and patients.
The commentary notes also that supporters of alt med and outright quackery will leap on this case as "proof" that evidence-based medicine can't be trusted. I'm sure we'll see lots of examples of this in days to come.
Please don't attribute thoughts, statements, conclusions or implications to my English text.
Yes, research fraud anywhere is possible.
This post was to the forum, because of it's consequences for those dealing with drugs.
My computer skills are minimal, so I don't search things for others.
Links that detail the drugs involved in this situation would interest me.
"This post was to the forum, because of it's consequences for those dealing with drugs."
This is an herbalism forum.
"Please don't attribute thoughts, statements, conclusions or implications to my English text."
Your post follows a common pattern of fallacious tu quoque posting to this forum (i.e. "Medicine is BAD, therefore Herbalism is GOOD"). Your reference to the researcher in question being "Western" is also curious. Why did you think that was noteworthy?
"Links that detail the drugs involved in this situation would interest me."
The link I provided has details.
You keep trying to ascribe interpretations to my English sentences.
My expressed opinion, in this forum, is that western people are best suited to use western medicine first.
I have not urgently studied your link for all the names of the drugs and use patterns, as I currently take no prescription drugs.
This does not demean your advocacy for a scientific clinical approach.
We may get fooled by others in life & at times that is perilous.
"You keep trying to ascribe interpretations to my English sentences."
That's the only language we are communicating in (and which you seem to handle quite well).
I'm having no problem understanding where you're coming from.
The list of the discredited 21 published research articles, that I clicked to from Eric's convenient link, mention these drugs in an article's title:
I recognize some of these as having been prescribed for immediate family members.
Just listing the drugs mentioned doesn't explain where the concerns lie. From the link:
"Dr. Reuben has been an extremely active and visible figure in multimodal analgesia, particularly as an advocate for its use in minimally invasive orthopedic and spine procedures. His research has provided support for several mainstays of current anesthetic practice, such as the use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and neuropathic agents instead of opioids and preemptive analgesia. Dr. Reuben has also published and presented data suggesting that multimodal analgesia can significantly improve long-term outcomes for patients."
The controversy relates to documentation for certain practices in anesthesia. The drugs themselves have been heavily researched elsewhere for a variety of uses which are not in question.
I recommend reading the entire linked commentary.
I have family treated, as patients, by U.S.A. "Pain Management" M.D.s. It seems some of the approaches were/are anesthetic & several of the drugs are familiar.
Their response to pain management treatment they related to me was disappointing over the years. There are so many factors to consider evaluating this.
I know of an appointment coming up soon for one relative.
? Can you tell me if this research fraud has any potential spill over into pain management protocols?
Commentary was read.
Read Dr. Shafer's comments in the linked commentary.
Yes, I had read that as this impinges on pain management protocols.
How does this impinge on herbalism?
That's a shame, glad the western scientific academic system is set up to seek out frauds and this kind of behavior is rare.