PHONY MEDICAL RESULTS

PUBLISHING FALSE RESULTS IN MEDICINE:

SPURIOUS, DISCOVERY AND VERIFICATION FINDINGS

 

 

INTRODUCTION:

 

BUSINESS WEEK author Barret suggests that medical research and in particular pharmaceutical studies are flawed. (Barrett, 2004:68-70) Numerous studies are financed by the same parties that want to sell a drug. Thus there is a conflict of interest. Nearly 60% of the studies are funded by “Big Pharma.” Researchers redefine data to show positive results, sample until a significant difference is found and then stop, down play negative results or delay these findings. Further, the drug companies hire ghost writers to write glowing reviews. Hire prominent medical doctors to endorse the drug. Spin the data, collapse spurious findings into significant ones, use non-random samples, and buy off regulatory bodies. Barrett (2005) also criticizes drug companies relative to their advertising. 

 

Healy(2005:8/8) is critical of pharmaceutical research on a natural cold medicine that has 350 studies from Europe and the UK that suggest that the herb is a viable support to pathological symptoms relative to sinusitis and related. NEWSWEEK (2004) spends nearly the entire issue on how alternative medicine can compliment western medicine.

They suggest that western medicine may be a bit over rated by flawed studies. BUSINESS WEEK (2005) touts health guru and Harvard M.D. Andrew Weil as a potential candidate to conduct research on alternative medicine using best research strategies to test their effect.  

 

Best selling author Gary Trudeau (without medical background) documents others’ reports of fraud in the pharmaceutical industry (Trudeau, 2005) Mundy (2001) traces the story of how drug companies cover up problems with a diet drug using fraud and deception. Ioannidis (2005:218-228) in JAMA suggests that the most famous and well read studies do not show the same degree of significant differences in follow up studies and suggest the etiology of this problem. He further discusses numerous research strategies that will generally render false or spurious findings in NEW SCIENTIST

( 9/30/2005.)

The ASSOCIATED PRESS (2005) reports that nearly 95 billion dollars spent on medical and pharmaceutical research annually is funded mainly by "big pharma."  Further, the authors of the studies usually have ties to corporations and related organizations that produce the drugs.

 

DISCUSSION

 

The authors would like to hypothetically indicate general strategies that would SUGGEST that findings vary in the value of validity. Thus, the reader can clearly identify the following:

SPURIOUS FINDINGS. This is operationalized to mean that the findings are likely to be false. DISCOVERY FINDINGS. This means that the author(s) have introduced concepts and data that need replication and improvement, but are valuable because they introduce new subjects or new relationships among variables. VERFICATION FINDINGS. At this level, the research follows all necessary research protocol and have the funds to do all the necessary research without bias. It is these studies that should be held acceptable for a fast changing field. It does not mean that the research will ALWAYS be ultimately valid. It means that it is the state of the science or research methodology at the time of publication. (Please see Hans Zetterberg’s classic methodology textbook (1965:114-156)

 

CRITERIA

 

SPURIOUS FINDINGS: They are:

  1. Research has totally fraudulent research. Numbers have been invented. Findings fit the author(s) agenda. It is a total fabrication.
  2. The quality of the research is so poor and so refutable that the findings should be discounted.
  3. Testimonial data. In this situation, no research has been conducted but the authors look for individuals that will support the agenda of the authors.
  4. Manipulated research. Numerous research protocols have been followed. However, the findings did not conform to the authors’ bias; therefore strategies are used such as data spinning, recollasping, redefining research objectives, not reporting findings when they clearly do not support the author, and related strategies.

 

 

DISCOVERY FINDINGS: They include:

  1. A new relationship or variable is introduced, but not documented.
  2. The author(s) provide an excellent overview of the literature of a particular topic.
  3. An academic provides a balanced review of a new source book, text book, or anthology or related.
  4. Author(s) use non-random but purposive samples and provide central tendency significance testing or epidemiological measures. The findings are suitable to warrant publication so that others can test them with random samples.
  5. Theoretical articles that suggest that there is something to consider for research in the ensuing years. The entire above discussion end with the caveat of the limitations of the research.
  6. Meta-analysis and/or Meta Cognitive Analysis of others’ research.
  7. Studies that mix nominal through ratio data in purposive samples and use multiple regression. A caveat must be made about the lack of randomness and the possibility of multi-co linearity
  8. Given the wisdom of crowds, anecdotal data is gathered for short term hypothesis generating research.
  9. Case studies and data generated from participant observation can be very valuable to generate new hypotheses.
  10. Due to sample limitations or related, experiments can not be double blind and cross sectional analysis is limited by small numbers.

 

 

VERFICATION FINDINGS: This means:

 

  1. Basic or primitive terms have been sufficiently operationalized.
  2. A random sample is drawn in which statistical variation is 4% or less (N=600) (3%=1500) (1%= 5000) (All real numbers have been rounded.)
  3. Research is reported clearly. Protocols are faithful to best practices in science.
  4. Ratio data is collected and analyzed when ever possible. Level of confidence is 5% or less.
  5. Political pressure is avoided by independent funding. Bias should be diminished in the interpretation. If the paradigm is basic to pre-moderns, moderns or post moderns it should be stated.
  6. The finding should be vetted by peers who do not know the author(s) of the research.
  7. The research is then reviewed and researched by triangulation (at least 3 different methods are used.)

 

 

CONCLUSION:

For many, the above have a common understanding. However, this must be clearly stated again and again, because research has been tarnished by the inept and the corrupt.

 

 REFERENCES CITED:

 

Associated Press (2005) Study looks as research costs The Gazette 7/21 2a.

Barrett, A. (2004) Why medicine and money don’t mix: do drug makers have too much control over lab data? Business Week, 6/28, 68-70.

 

Barrett, A. (2005) Drug makers are changing channels Business Week, 8/15, 44-45

 

Healy, B. (2005) Echinacea’s war U. S. News & World Report, 8/8. 56.

 

Hempel, J. (2005) A health guru with an agenda Business Week, 8/19 56.

 

Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005) Contradicted and initially stronger effects in highly cited clinical research Journal of American Medical Association, 294   218-228.

 

Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2005) Why published research findings are false Journal of Preventive Medicine, 8/30, 120-134.

 

Mundy, Alicia (2001) Dispensing with the truth New York: St. Martins Press

 

Trudeau, K. (2004) Natural cures Elk Grove Village, Illinois: Alliance Press

_______ (2004) Alternative medicine helps Newsweek 9/27 20-40.

 

________(2005) False findings New Scientist, 9/30

 

Zetterberg, Hans (1965) On theory and verification Totowa, New Jersey: Bedminister Press.

 

Home Essays Small Talk Books About Joel Snell Publications Links