Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty
 

Two-Thirds Of Studies Are Fraudulent

October 4, 2012 by  

Two-Thirds Of Studies Are Fraudulent
PHOTOS.COM
Two out of three studies have to be retracted.

A new study shows that studies can’t be trusted. Researchers found that nearly 70 percent of research articles have been retracted because of fraud.

When researchers reviewed more than 2,000 articles published in scientific journals, they found that 67.4 percent had to be retracted. Fraudulent studies have increased nearly tenfold since the 1970s.

The majority of fraudulent articles came out of the United States. Germany, Japan, China, the U.K., India and South Korea also produced erroneous research.

The research on fraudulent articles, which appears in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, concludes that on average it takes about 32 months for an article to be found fraudulent and get retracted. By that time, many stories have already been treated as fact, and governmental policy may have been enacted because of the so-called research.

“Authors commonly write, ‘We regret we have to retract our paper because the work is not reproducible,’ which is not exactly a lie,” said Arturo Casadevall, M.D., of Albert Einstein College of Medicine of Yeshiva University. “The work indeed was not reproducible-because it was fraudulent. Researchers try to protect their labs and their reputations, and these retractions are written in such a way that you often don’t know what really happened.”

Bryan Nash

Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question. He is currently pursuing a Master's of Divinity and is the author of The Messiah's Misfits, Things Unseen and The Backpack Guide to Surviving the University. He has also been a regular contributor to the magazine Biblical Insights.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Two-Thirds Of Studies Are Fraudulent”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at newstips@personalliberty.com

  • Vicki

    The OP writes:
    “A new study shows that studies can’t be trusted. Researchers found that nearly 70 percent of research articles have been retracted because of fraud.”

    So what is the % possibility that the study of studies can be trusted?

    • Charlie Tall

      I would think that the author, Nash, intended a little tongue-in-cheek irony when he wrote that sentence.

      It’s not just the funding, which implies only academia and research enterprises. It is also the success or failure aspect of the outcome of the study. If the study produces the desired results, it is a success, otherwise, it is a failure even though both outcomes produce actionable data.

      Thus, it has been my experience that most of the “studies” in academia, business, and government are written to yield the results desired by the authority that commissioned them, a.k.a. the boss.

      One major item of logic behind this assertion is the simple fact that results contrary to expectations rarely if ever see the light of day.

      In a word, the boss won’t let them be published.

      But this, too, is a study, albeit an informal one.

      • GALT

        This study. Charlie, references studies that WERE published……….

      • Charlie Tall

        @GALT
        Right. So obviously, they were studies that pleased the boss, not necessarily studies that accurately reported the truth.

        Now do you understand?

        If a study gets published, it’s probably flawed or at least biased.

      • GALT

        No……….the actual abstract that Bryan used is below…….

        Turns out that there were 2047 studies and ALL OF THEM WERE RETRACTED.

        Turns out that these studies were limited to “biomedical and life-science research articles”

        So while your opinion has been stated…….it had nothing to do with Bryan’s article,
        and Bryan’s article completely misstates the facts and the range of the abstract.

        All of which is going to generate a “lot of opinion”, and none of which will be
        properly directed at the facts or the range of what the “original article” intended
        to communicate……….

        Now do YOU understand?

      • GALT

        P.S. This is the caption under the photo……

        Two out of three studies have to be retracted.

        P.P.S. This is the HEADLINE

        Two-Thirds Of Studies Are Fraudulent

        This is Bryan’s mission in life: Staff writer Bryan Nash has devoted much of his life to searching for the truth behind the lies that the masses never question.

        Bryan needs to find a NEW mission……

      • Charlie Tall

        @GALT
        GALT wrote, “Turns out that there were 2047 studies and ALL OF THEM WERE RETRACTED.”

        Charlie Tall wrote, “If a study gets published, it’s probably flawed or at least biased.”

        What part of that don’t you understand?

        Enough. I tire of arguing with a mirror.

      • GALT

        Yes Charlie you are arguing with a mirror……not with me…….

        What part of “Bryan Nash” is a “functional illiterate” did you miss?

        What part of “your opinion” of an opinion offered by a “functional illiterate” is even
        more lame……… did you not understand?

        What part about “reproducible results” regarding “scientific papers” do you not understand? Let’s see…….

        Charlie said; “Charlie Tall wrote, “If a study gets published, it’s probably flawed or at least biased.”

        If a scientific paper is published and the results are reproducible, the paper is neither
        flawed nor biased………so much for your opinion based on the opinion of a functional illiterate………but feel free to post the PROOF of YOUR OPINION anytime……you will be
        rich and famous……( since you are NOT NOW “rich and famous”, the potential VALUE of
        YOUR OPINIONS would seem to be somewhat questionable…..I wonder why?)

        Clear it up any for you, Charlie?

      • ChristyK

        I read another article yesterday on a study of studies. It said 70% of retracted studies were fraudulent, not that 70% of all studies were fraudulent. I would like the author to recheck the details of his article. I do know that many researchers work hard to get the desired results in order to get more funding and that some journals or scientific clicks try to force researchers to get the politically correct conclusions (ie global warming), but I do think an article on the fraudulent studies should be accurate.

      • GALT

        The abstract that Bryan read is posted below after Mr. Livingston provided the
        actual source……

        Bryan could have done the same…….which would have made him look
        like the “idiot” he is ……..

        With the exception of one other person here…….all the opinion here is based on
        what they think they know regarding Bryan’s idiotic, false and functionally illiterate opinion.

        And they STILL haven’t caught on…..note time of this post.

      • Charlie Tall

        Here we go again with GALT’s poor logic, ignorance, laughable attempts at communication, and weak debate tactics.

        GALT asserts, “If a scientific paper is published and the results are reproducible, the paper is neither flawed nor biased………”

        Actually, the only thing reproducible results prove is that the results are reproducible. Do I need to explain the implications of that to you, GALT?

        Do I need to point out that there is no assurance that negative or contraindicative information is to be found in any study? Information which would, if omitted, indicate bias?

        Thus we see that your assertion is false.

        This, by the way, is the most common flaw in government studies: they do not communicate the entire story or they do not address unintended consequences.

        GALT: “so much for your opinion based on the opinion of a functional illiterate………but feel free to post the PROOF of YOUR OPINION anytime……”

        Actually, my opinion is based on experience.

        GALT: “you will be rich and famous……”

        This is your unsupported opinion followed by a conclusion that does not necessarily follow.

        GALT: “( since you are NOT NOW “rich and famous”, the potential VALUE of YOUR OPINIONS would seem to be somewhat questionable…..I wonder why?)”

        Ah, the ad hominem argument. I was surprised that you had not gotten around to that already.There goes what little respect I previously had for you.

        By the way, GALT, what’s with all the little dots… … …?

      • CHRISTOPHER ALLEN HORTON

        “GALT” [10:10 AM], YOU ARE CORRECT.

      • GALT

        wow you asked a question……way too late to help and irrelevant…….

        ad hominum? hardly……..but if I am wrong regarding the rather reasonable logic as
        to the value of your experience and opinions……..I am willing to admit my error…..

        All you have to do is produce the evidence……..which will happen on the 12th day of NEVER……..but feel free to prove me wrong.

        As for your question…….Vigilant has an “opinion”……find him and ask…..if you ask
        NICELY he might favor you with a scatologically based bit of verse……4 sometimes
        5 lines……are you done yet…….???????

      • SJJolly

        Those who have been around a while may remember all the studies, commissioned by the tobacco industry, that proved no link between smoking and lung cancer, emphasima, and related health problems. To borrow a proverb, “He who pays the researcher gets the results he wants (about 70% of the time).”

    • GALT

      100% obviously……..how hard is it to count the number of retractions and divide by the number of studies?

      Better questions for staph writer Bryan would be:

      1.) What is the actual source of “his” information……he lists: Proceedings of
      the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, which you
      can link to but the article in question does not appear to be from the current issue…….
      and IF this is actually “his source”, it SHOULD include the day and month
      of publication, as olde Bryan is all about ” searching for the truth behind the
      lies that the masses never question.”

      2.) The above is a subscription service, with full public access granted after 6 months,
      although you can access abstracts and view the table of contents and all the articles
      published there……

      Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States
      of America

      PNAS is one of the world’s most-cited multidisciplinary scientific serials. Since its establishment in 1914, it continues to publish cutting-edge research reports, commentaries, reviews, perspectives, colloquium papers, and actions of the Academy. Coverage in PNAS spans the biological, physical, and social sciences. PNAS is published weekly in print, and daily online in PNAS Early Edition. The PNAS impact factor is 9.681 and the Eigenfactor is 1.60330 for 2011. PNAS is available by subscription.

      curiously, I wonder what the impact and eigenfactors are for P.L.D.?
      Bryan Nash? …..not so much.

      3.) Not really sure what the POINT actually is………which might have been your point
      Vicki………but there is another math question which pops out and that is

      “Fraudulent studies have increased nearly tenfold since the 1970s.”

      Which could mean ten times more fraud but only if the number of studies has
      stayed the same………

      So Bryan, how about answering some questions from the “masses” regarding
      your TRUTH? ( the mass here egualing one, possibly two?)

      “To conquer, first DIVIDE!” ( and then HANG, separately!!!!!!)

      • http://boblivingstonpl.wordpress.com Bob Livingston

        Dear GALT,

        You write: “What is the actual source of “his” information…” http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109

        Best wishes,
        Bob

      • GALT

        Thank you

      • GALT

        “A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012 revealed that only 21.3% of retractions were attributable to error. In contrast, 67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct, including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%). Incomplete, uninformative or misleading retraction announcements have led to a previous underestimation of the role of fraud in the ongoing retraction epidemic. The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975. Retractions exhibit distinctive temporal and geographic patterns that may reveal underlying causes.”

        So Bob, this is the actual abstract that Byran used to write his article?????????

        Comparing the two…….his reading comprehension skills are questionable.

        http://www.pnas.org/content/suppl/2012/09/28/1212247109.DCSupplemental

      • Kinetic1

        GALT,
        Allow me to reinforce your point; Mr. Nash’s article states “Researchers found that nearly 70 percent of research articles have been retracted because of fraud”. A very startling number, especially when compared to the article from which these “facts” were derived. The article states that “…misconduct is responsible for two-thirds of all retractions.” Let’s look at that again …. almost 70% of RETRACTED studies are due to fraud, not 70% of ALL studies. This fact alone shows what a fraud Mr. Nash truly is. Hardly what we would expect from a man “currently pursuing a Master’s of Divinity.”

        Mr. Nash has a history of reporting only those parts of the news reports that support his narrow world view. He tortures the facts and twists the truth. Time and time again I find myself feeling that something is missing from his articles, and time and time again I find the missing information puts a whole new light on his story. For instance, his “nearly 70 percent ….fraud” claim ignores the nature of the “fraud”. “Duplicate publication (14.2%), and plagiarism (9.8%)” while fraud of a sort, do not necessarily cast doubt on the results of the study. It’s still a damning condemnation of many of our nation’s researchers, but you can’t just ignore the details. The sort of fraud that leads Mr. Nash to announce that “…studies can’t be trusted.” is really closer to 45%. And how about this little piece he left out:
        “There is a very optimistic piece of data in the paper,” noted Dr. Casadevall: 43 percent of all retractions came from just 38 of the thousands of labs worldwide.”
        A worthwhile piece of information to include, but it undercuts the idea that you can’t trust ANY research, which is clearly his goal.

      • GALT

        actually; ‘including fraud or suspected fraud (43.4%),’ would be the fraud portion of the
        of the “67.4% of retractions were attributable to misconduct,”

        and just look at all these marvelous “entitled opinions” incited by this piece of garbage…..

        Soooooo “intelligent”………good thing the continued existence of the universe doesn’t
        depend on “opinion”…….

  • Warrior

    First and foremost, must keep the funding coming otherwise some may have to find real work. These are “investments”, right?

    • GALT

      Could be……..we don’t know who conducted the studies or WHY?

      So we have another question for Bryan…….

    • ranger hall

      Warrior, You just hit the hammer on the nail, Also how many of these reports were GOVT funded, Grants etc.

      • GALT

        He didn’t hit any nail…….he asked a question regarding a totally frabricated and erroneous article……..by a functional illiterate operating without a net……..( no editor…
        which probably means no editorial policy or any regard for the TRUTH here….but
        only Mr. Livingston can answer that question. )

  • Jon

    Send me $2.6 million, and I’ll perform a study for you. Any subject. And for $2 million more, I’ll guarantee any result you want. –www.honestyinschools.gov

    • GALT

      and then what…..off to Brazil? Just curious, but don’t you think you could
      manage to skim enough out of the 2.6 mill asking price……….?

    • TIME

      Dear Jon,

      I guess now you better understand the path to “indoctrination” at any and all cost.

      Perhaps better said, what the worlds population has been sold as “TRUTHS” oddly not a single truth in the whole lot. Yet – the real question is: Why is that?

      { Is MONEY is indeed the ROOT of all “indoctrination” to make us all blind and obedient ignorant followers ~ by way of – the – THEORY.}

      I think we can all agree that a strong case can be made for such, but then again one must also be able to look beyond the obvious flaws being sold as Truths, thus the question’s still remain- why is it that we all lust and covet money so much?
      Why do we need to be told what to do, or how to do it?
      Why do lust and covet false truths?
      Why do we allow ourselfs to be bought like a prostitute?

      Then the question – is how much money will it take for a person to sell themself to the Human made GODS THEORYS – to fill ones needs for greed or lust of some form of ego based esteem?

      One must ask – is it not sad when in fact; “REAL TRUTHS” are FREE when given in a message format from one who ask for no pecuniary gain. Afterall for all truth’s – All ONE must do is ~ look within ONES self for answers, yet oddly these answers are FREE.
      Yet ~ Saddly our present form of “INDOCTRINATION” is based on the platform of following blindly ~ based on 15-20 second sound bite of rhetoric.

      But , be all that it may, as we have told for how many thousands of years we as humans are flawed afterall we are told this from the moment we slide out of the womb.
      But – what if perchance – this INDOCTRINATION is wrong?

      What is we hold far greater power than we know or have been conditioned to understand?

      Something to think about, don’t you think?

      Peace & Love be with you.

      • Kate8

        TIME – Thank you. You actually get it. GALT strikes me as someone who flies into a tyrade about anything, regardless of the issue. Makes my head spin.

        IT’S ALL ILLUSION. DECEPTION. Period.

        All of the “studies” are “research” geared toward “nudging” us into the behaviors and choices the PTB want to move us. For every one of them, there are several others which dispute the findings. So we choose the ones which suit our own belief systems best, and close our minds to reason.

        I have often found it puzzling how easy it is to get people to accept the proclamations of “experts” without question. As if there is some infallable system operating that provides us with conclusive fact. “Studies have shown”… there’s those “experts” again… even though the findings often defy all common sense.

        It’s all a ruse. Always has been. You are right. When we are whole, we have access to the only source of truth we need: within ourselves. We have been socially engineered to distrust our inner guidance, if we are aware of it at all, in order to keep us believing that we are dependent upon the all-knowing “experts”, rendering us little more than managed livestock.

        Everything in our minds has been placed there by others. When we become aware of this, we have the potential to throw it off and become free at last, because the most effective prison is the prison of our own mind.

      • 45caliber

        Kate8:

        Keep in mind that an “expert” is a “has-been drip under pressure”.

        That explains much of what the research is. It isn’t important.

        There was once some “research” I remember – I’ll try to quote some of it here:
        ————————————————-

        PICKLES ARE BAD FOR YOU!!

        A research organization found that pickles were very bad for anyone to eat. Here is their proof.

        1. Everyone who ate a pickle before 1880 is now dead.

        2. Every soldier who ate pickles prior to the Civil War died.

        3. Every person in the study was found to either die or get wrinkled and weak over the duration of the study (80- years).

        4. Richard the Lion Hearted ate pickles and died.

        5. Harry S. Truman ate pickles and died!

        Therefore it is the conclusion of this research that all pickles should be immediately banned by the government and any pickle-makers be arrested and incarcerated for murder!

      • GALT

        Since you have no clue what the issue is…….based on an article, by an author who can’t
        read……with facts that are not facts, and where the actual facts do not support your claim
        and demonstrates that your understanding that science requires reproducibility doesn’t
        appear to be evidenced……your opinion regarding me as well as your offering general
        is completely worthless…….

        Reproducible results are FACTS……..that’s what SCIENCE is…….

        I have added a link to the original link by Bob…….it lists the NAMES of the authors
        cited most often………which all you “truth seeking” people can search to locate the
        labs and the funding source……….then you will have some evidence to support
        or refute………whatever it is you think you heard………confirming that you already think you know.

        At the moment you are clueless about everything……how is it possible for
        YOU to actually have an OPINION……let alone one worth listening to?

        As for what Time thinks, Kate……you will just have to wait an see……..as there
        now some FACTS to actually have an opinion about…….

        In a courtroom the objection: “Assumes FACTS not in evidence” would be sustained
        regarding what you have written…….Bryan, on the other hand would be in jail for perjury.

      • TIME

        Dear Kate,

        I feel that Galt like yourself is one of the best who post here, let me explain why I feel that way.

        Galt will make you expand your thinking parameters far beyond the outside of the box, Kate, thats also why I also enjoy reading your post too as you tend to not be boxed in. Thats a great trait! We who have gray matter should be supportive of each other.

        We all need to stop and look far beyond the frail small minded NEO CON’S or the NEO QUASI Liberals, who are in fact both so small minded that they are like looking into a nano chamber, so in fact ~ its nearly impossible to tell the differance between them..

        So I think if you look at Galts post as a challenge to everyone, to open up their minds ~ and when that hurts ~ ~ then open up even wider and expand to new ways of thinking,

        I for one thank Galt for helping me to break my cycle of keepin within the lines, just as you have done also and Kate I thank you too.

        Hell I never had small thinking when I was running my Company if I did I would have been just like everyone else, yet that was not how I did things if someone said I could’nt do it, that just made me think around the issue until I had done what I wanted to do, and came out on top every time.
        Think of Galt as a Gift just as I think of You Kate as a gift, thus Bob Livingston has allowed us all to be gifts to each other to expand and grow our collective thinking gray matter.
        That in and of its self ~ is just beautiful.

        So let me say this before I close ~ in the long run we all keep each other in check, yet aid each other in expanding at the same time, so we all question more, think deeper, so we can progress to address the issues at hand.

        Keep in mind that soon ~~ we all will have to pick up the fragments of what was once a Great Nation.
        As I have said before and will say it yet again, the money system is going to CRASH and BURN, — that in turn will create a whole new group of issues we will all need to address, we can do it!
        But the good news is ~~~ that we can build something even better but it will take all of us, You, Galt, Mr. Livingston and everyone who can really think about how to create and build a better mouse trap.
        I pray that this TIME we can hold on to it for thousands of years rather than a hundred or so.

        Peace and Love, be with you

      • Kate8

        TIME – Of course you are right, and this doesn’t really have anything to do with GALT, other than he makes me weary with his heady attachment to intellectual maneuvering and so-called “facts”. My question to him would be, “Do you know any of this stuff from first-hand experience, or is this just more parroting of the “experts”? Because anything to do with 3rd dimensional deductions are, of their very nature, illusory.

        That said, we are all gifts to one another in some way or other. In fact, I would go further and say that we are all aspects of one another. Mirrors to challenge our own perception of ourselves.

        I have always enjoyed your posts, TIME, and have noticed your evolution of consciousness just in the time we’ve posted here. There is more to this picture than many know, and while it appears to be frightening from here, we are heading for a quantum leap.

        Perhaps all of the insanity of these days is so we get really good and tired of the game, and learn to look beyond it. It’s exhausting to keep plugged into it. It’s like the parable where the student asks the master how to reach enlightenment, and the master grabs his head and holds it in the river until the student is about to drown, and then pulls him out of the water and says, “When you want it as much as you wanted that next breath…”.

      • Kate8

        45 – That’s a good one, and is pretty much the size of it. According to the “experts”, living is hazardous to our health, and if we live long enough we will surely die.

        Good thing we have “experts” to tell us such things.

      • GALT

        Kate……..Thank you for the question……..btw I just noticed your other response below
        which asks another question…….you are on a roll…….i will deal with that other question
        below……..

        This by the way is the first question you have asked me…….

        People here seem to “object to me” because I ask QUESTIONS……that is what I did here,
        because the “functional illiterate” who wrote this article……….didn’t make any sense…..

        Mr Livingston answered my question…….now I had “information” upon which to form
        an “opinion”………or if you like I offered an “informed opinion”……….

        people here also object to me, because I don’t answer the questions I ask……..they don’t answer the questions…….but they have an opinion about the questions asked……..

        So in the main…..we have an audience who doesn’t ask questions, doesn’t answer questions, objects to those who ask questions………but seems to think they are entitled to an opinion……….and should be taken seriously…….

        SERIOUSLY????????????

        Time has been far more generous with you than I would be……..or have been BUT
        you have the ability to change that……that is up to you.

        What I know about Time is that he is a moral man……a man of faith and a true christian,
        I am “beyond atheism” and a P.L.F………but in so far as what we both KNOW…….we are
        traveling the same path…………

        As for your question……..what “experts” am I parroting?

        Surely you are not disputing the FACT that “science” requires reproducibility?

        BTW there is one other group of response types…….very small……those
        that actually try to answer the questions…….and get them wrong……..you aren’t
        one of those yet…..so no need to go any further……..at this point.

      • Kate8

        GALT – I don’t object to you at all. Nor do I care about your opinion of me. I was merely commenting on your attachment to intellectual ‘facts’.

        I admit to none of your hypotheses. I understand 3D reality to be manifestation of the mind, and subject to perception and belief. That you view it differently makes absolutely no difference to me. That is your right.

        Judge me as you will. My perspective is different from yours. No big deal. That doesn’t make one of us right nor one of us wrong.

        I didn’t mean to engage you, as we’ve already established that we are on different planes. Apples and oranges. So why belabor an exercise in futility.

        Have a nice day.

      • GALT

        Good……..let me help with your desire not to engage me……do NOT reference me in any way…….

        and you are right……we have nothing to talk about…..

        BTW your reality is 4d………speculation has gone from 26d to 11d to 10d

        3d is what you see…..if you are lucky……..4d is what you experience…….

      • Kate8

        GALT – I appears to me that you don’t know what the heck you are talking about. It’s best not to try to venture into areas with which you are unfamiliar, and try to appear intelligent. You only show your ignorance.

        When you blather on in one lengthy tirade after another, spouting rude nonsense and gibberish, I can comment about it if I want to.

        So there.

      • GALT

        really kate? please show me what is it that you think is ignorance…..

        and let me help you by eliminating any possibility of you being unable to understand
        what you have just read……

        3d is what you see if you are lucky……as in two eyes…..if you only have one eye, 2d is what you see……..

        when you add TIME……you get 4d……the d is for dimensions……just in case you
        are really stupid…….YOUR REALITY is still 4d…….

        26d was the first level of speculation in the quest for the G.U.T. which involved things
        like super symmetry, super gravity, early string theory, etc……but then the math guys found e8 x e8 and SO32 or SI32…….and 26d was gone……

        Super Gravity failed out of the gate…..quite similar to the three body problem…..it
        couldn’t get past the next level…….

        String Theory ( after all that mess ) for some reason started out with 11d and wound up with 10d…..can’t remember why exactly……but the ten includes the four I have just mentioned….plus 6…….which are rolled up…….the description of which is presented in a 2d representation of a 3d model of an ant walking on a line……which is 1d…….the LINE, that is……the other 6d are supposedly “rolled up” in that line……

        Still with me……cause now it really gets fun…….that entire journey was based
        entirely on mathematical models…….there is no actual evidence for anything beyond
        4d………but of course you already KNOW THIS…..right?

        To compound all this……no one really knows what “mathematics” is…….
        but maybe you can help.

        Mostly though you really need to back off……..for two reasons…..

        1.) I don’t talk about things with which I am unfamiliar……

        and

        2.) as stated my general approach is to ask questions…..

        You all are the one’s that have “opinions”…….and never ask questions……and from
        what I can tell you …..as in this case, CLEARLY….you have no idea of what you have been talking about ………and you STILL DON”T…..

        You seem so insecure that you find other ideas threatening to you, and you just come off as a jerk.

        Good luck with that…….but now I am going to give a serious warning…..”willfull ignorance”
        is a threat……..you are running smack up against the REALITY that Malthus predicted….
        and there is a solution to that problem……….keep going the way you are and infinity
        will be your reality…….probably sooner than you expect……

  • dan

    Ah academia is a racket….say it ain’t so ! The pressure to be published to keep ones position .

    Whatever happened to peer review before publishing….sigh

    • eddie47d

      I’ll take this article with a grain of salt although worthy of debate. I’m sure there are some companies who want private or government funding to continue and put any information out there so it won’t stop. If this article was absolutely true then there would be an awful lot of researchers and “scientists” in jail for fraud.

      • Kate8

        Wrong again, eddie. These “experts” are paid to produce the “results” desired by our controllers. They are geared toward proving whatever is the hypothesis.

        It is curious the large numbers of scientists in many fields which have met with strange “accidents” and “suicides” in recent years. It numbers in the hundreds. Could it be because they became aware of something, and posed a threat to those who would continue the deception of the masses?

        I’m sure you wouldn’t know anything about this, the good little drone that you are. Should your curiousity ever become aroused, there is whole ‘nother world beyond the MSM.

      • eddie47d

        Nothing you said “proved me wrong” Kate 8. Apparently you are saying they Don’t jimmy their information to keep the funding going then. Maybe you only babbled to hear your self talk!

      • ranger hall

        Eddie, just look at some of the grants the govt gives to people and what the grant was about. also look at some of the larger ones and the ind that received the money, also the results from this grant. beats working for a living. Its almost as good as when the Govt hires independent investigation lawers, Just a way to give taxpayers money to other friends.Seems like all the reports come back with NO CHARGES againest these People, Pays to be a Politician

      • eddie47d

        See my 8:32 comment

    • 45caliber

      dan:

      They DO have peer review before publishing! It’s called “scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours.”

      In other words, I’ll review and approve your valuable research if you’ll do the same for me.

      • GALT

        No dear……those would be your “elected officials”…….

        For ‘scientists’ you’re going to have to try harder……..provided you know what “science”
        is…….a FACT which Bryan actually got right…..no doubt by accident……..since it
        is CLEAR that most of you missed it and don’t know!!!!!!!!!

      • Kate8

        GALT – Just being a scientist doesn’t mean someone is any more ethical or accountable than a corporate exec or a politician. I have heard many lectures and interviews with scientists who have awakened from the stupor of conventional “knowledge”, only to discover that there is a great huge universe of wonder that goes far beyond our extremely limited comprehension of reality.

        Such awakened scientists have admitted that science is, indeed, rigged toward accepted “facts”, and any deviance from such is severely punished.

        Are you a scientist, btw? We establish rules for 3D thinking, and we limit ourselves by doing so. But the limits exist only in our minds, and as soon as we accept that there is much more, it begins to reveal to us. But believing is seeing, and we will produce results which prove out our expectations based on what we hold as fact.

      • GALT

        Kate………are you a scientist? or are you just parroting those “scientists” who are
        telling you what you want to hear?

        I know, just more questions…….but I really don’t have any choice……..science consists of reproducible results and reproducible results are facts……..

        Second, to be more accurate it would 4d thinking……..and much of what is “graphically”
        represented or attempted is in 2d…………a black hole represented as a funnel……is an
        essentially useless representation………….there are also two event horizons for any black hole……….and as the hole gains mass……..these two event horizons grow farther apart….
        agree? disagree? seen it before?

        Thirdly, ” But believing is seeing, and we will produce results which prove out our expectations based on what we hold as fact. ”

        That is about as NON scientific as you can get……..in fact I am not sure it makes any sense at all………but that could just be me……….

        Still….this is the process required to have an “intelligent discussion”…….those that
        are here seeking THAT are extremely few………….mostly what I do….is sort of
        attempted damage control……..and not very successfully………but there are
        these brief glimmers…….

      • Kate8

        GALT – I’m a bit confused about why you think it’s your job to do “damage control” about how people think. Are you some self-appointed thought police?

        Are you views more valid than others? You seem awfully attached to “reproducible” results. As matter is just manifest spirit form, energy in motion… these results could be subject to change any time one’s beliefs and perceptions change.

        Don’t worry about convincing people like TIME and me that you are right. I understand where TIME is coming from, and I also get where you are coming from. You have a certain paradigm reality, and we have another. I, for one, am quite happy with the direction I’ve chosen, and know there is a long way to go. Infinity, in fact.

        I hold nothing but best wishes for you on your own journey.

      • GALT

        see kate….that’s why being able to comprehend what you read is so important…..

        GALT – I’m a bit confused about why you think it’s your job to do “damage control” about how people think. Are you some self-appointed thought police?

        “mostly what I do….is sort of attempted damage control……..and not very successfully………but there are these brief glimmers…….”

        You are not one of these glimmers……

        Are you views more valid than others?

        To which views are you referring?.Are my questions more valid than others?
        Who can say……I’m the one that asked them here…….you are questioning
        my questions? Why didn’t you ask the questions?

        You seem awfully attached to “reproducible” results.

        Yup, pretty much what SCIENCE is……..

        As matter is just manifest spirit form, energy in motion… these results could be subject to change any time one’s beliefs and perceptions change.

        Okay……let me know when your perceptions change regarding gravity….
        be fun to watch…….

        Don’t worry about convincing people like TIME and me that you are right.

        I am not worried…….I am asking questions…….but just for kicks, what am I
        WRONG about?

        I understand where TIME is coming from,

        No you don’t.

        and I also get where you are coming from.

        No you don’t.

        You have a certain paradigm reality, and we have another.

        there is only ONE REALITY…….and your “we” is speculative…
        you are HERE……this is NOW……there is no OTHER REALITY!

        I, for one, am quite happy with the direction I’ve chosen, and know
        there is a long way to go. Infinity, in fact.

        Wow, Bob…….this is the best endorsement you will ever get…..
        a chosen direction…..resulting in ” quite happy” which brings her
        here for “infinity”……….or is this Patrick Cox’s fault?

        I hold nothing but best wishes for you on your own journey.

        Not necessary…….I actually know where I am……but thanks anyway,
        you will need the wishes more than I.

      • Kate8

        GALT – You really are one arrogant SOB.

        Your truth is your truth. Period. That you believe that there is only one reality may be true for you, but not truth. Not mine, not that of many.

        For some reason you think you have it all figured out.

        Hahahahahahahahaha. You are just another brainwashed, indoctrinated, dumbed-down sheep who thinks he’s smarter than everyone else, when all you do is subscribe to the program of the system.

      • GALT

        being smarter than you kate ain’t much to brag about…….but hey, that’s the beauty of that different “paradigm” that is your REALITY, huh?

        Sorry dear…..where I am……is a place you have yet to begin to imagine is possible…..
        try to figure out where you are…….when you do get back to me……

        Thus endith your lesson…..please note the time. BYE NOW….oh and “best wishes”…..

  • Larry the King

    You would think that just the fact alone that cigarette smoking is bad for you for all the obvious reasons. But in order to make it easier to get people willing to let government decide on how a perfectly legal substance can be used thus decided how to use and profit from it via taxes the Government used faulty scientific information. Example regardless of all the information contradicting the Goverment accepted info on second hand smoke, they our government chose the one they could use to convince the people to gain there tax dollars.How many of you who will disagree with what i’ve written realize they have yet been able to produce one death they can absolutely say was caused from second hand smoke. And no i do not smoke nor would suggest another should but i will not prevent you from using a perfectly legal substance even in a privately owned bar retauarant or other public places other than suggest you not smoke around me, and if you decide to smoke around me there is nothing stopping me from complaining or moving to another spot.

    • ranger hall

      Larry, Good points, At lest the Liquor industry is still in good terms with the Politicians must be all the Money donated to them. The diesel Fuel from all the cars,trucks,buses etc, is considered more of a health hazard than smoking.

  • cawmun cents

    “Studies show that….”,and “experts say that….”are often used in articles by the people who write them.Sources are often indicated afterward,but nowhere does it ever question the funding of those sources.Whomever funds the studies is obviously looking for an answer that benefits them in some way or another,otherwise why would they spend their resources on the study in question?
    To qualify a statement,dont you ordinarily judge the integrity of the person giving said statement?
    Of course you do.But when reading an article or a statement of what you surmise to be fact,do you then seek to understand why this “fact” is being presented in the form it is being presented?
    Does it back up other statements that you presume are facts,or is it just way out of line with previous facts you acknowledged?Are you even begging the question?Or do you just assume that those who study are full of character and integrity,so it must be truth being presented to you?
    Do you presume that because someone has the available funding from an unknown source,that everything that they study is done with integrity in mind,or is the
    “golden rule”in play here?
    When I was a child,and first heard the statement,”experts agree”applied in an article I was reading,I thought to myself,”Who acknowledges these peoples expertise?”.
    It then occured to me that there was trickery afoot,when I surmised that it had to do with who was funding a particular study.It’s not rocket science to understand the concept that folks want to get what they pay for.So at that point I knew I was likely being duped for some unknown reason,that had to do with someones integrity or lack thereof,specifically because they had the funds to initiate such proceedings.
    Hello McFly?
    When you cant read between the lines,and have no concept of the unseen,you will fail miserably to obtain the real truth behind any fascimile of fact as it is presented.
    You find yourself falling prey to fallibility and false pretenses,in order to establish that a study was made.A study which you have no earthly idea of the integrity of.
    Facts cannot be presented in a statement that backs the truth,but rather they merely are the truth.A judgement call is then made on who is presenting the facts,and what is behind the fact which they are presenting,otherwise how can you trust what anyone says?
    Since you are continually bombarded with lies on a momentary basis in this age of the information highway,how then do you separate fact and fiction?
    It may be necessary to see the unseen,or comprehend the incomprehensible,to find the integrity that you are eluding to.
    Everything is presented today as a gray area,
    There is no black and white.
    Truth is only as factual as the persons integrity who is presenting it.
    And that my fellow Americans,is a fact that leads to a whole new set of questions,doesnt it?
    Cheers!
    -CC.

  • Dad

    …but it pays well anyway. More examples of failure from your government union slugs. We can cut government spending by eliminating a third to a half of these parasites… audit their effectiveness and value…

    • ranger hall

      Dad, You are talking about a very Private Club, Protected by the laws they write. You are right in that the American People should get rid of these People, But Sheep only follow the Bell, The American people are no longer strong, we just keep getting weaker. and we are so seperated as never before, We only follow the sound of the bell.

      • GALT

        You got that RIGHT and you prove it every time you come here……Ding, dong.

  • Charlie Tall

    Turns out that GALT and Nash both have reading comprehension problems. The 2047 studies referenced were only those that were retracted, not as GALT misstated, “Turns out that there were 2047 studies and ALL OF THEM WERE RETRACTED.”

    The total number of studies was not stated in the abstract, nor was the percentage of the total that was retracted.

    GALT also stated, “This study. Charlie, references studies that WERE published………” Actually, it is limited to studies that were retracted, which presumes they were published in the first place. Rather obvious.

    Nash does state, incorrectly, that, “Researchers found that nearly 70 percent of research articles have been retracted because of fraud.” when he should have written that nearly 70 percent of articles that were retracted were retracted because of fraud.

    That is quite a different conclusion.

    GALT also quoted Nash and stated:

    “’Fraudulent studies have increased nearly tenfold since the 1970s.’

    Which could mean ten times more fraud but only if the number of studies has
    stayed the same………”

    Indeed, the study clearly states that, “The percentage of scientific articles retracted because of fraud has increased ∼10-fold since 1975.” That is not the same thing as Nash stated.

    In any event, it is also obvious that fraud has become a bigger problem, relatively speaking, than it was in 1975. It is also obvious that Nash needs to revise his article.

    • GALT

      Gee you really ARE a “functional illiterate”!

      • GALT

        Since you are probably “clueless” as to why……..here is the evidence……but first….

        “Turns out that GALT and Nash both have reading comprehension problems. The 2047 studies referenced were only those that were retracted, not as GALT misstated, “Turns out that there were 2047 studies and ALL OF THEM WERE RETRACTED.”

        My response was directed to what Bryan wrote which was:

        When researchers reviewed more than 2,000 articles published in scientific journals, they found that 67.4 percent had to be retracted.

        “Turns out that there were 2047 studies and ALL OF THEM WERE RETRACTED.”

        Make sense now? Probably not………what a mushroom!

      • Charlie Tall

        @GALT

        You claim that you knew what was being discussed. If that be true, then the conclusion is that you just can’t write worth a damn.

        If your response was directed to what Bryan wrote, you could have made that clear. What you did write was ambiguous, and at first glance, without your explanations, wrong.

        You wrote, “Turns out that there were 2047 studies and ALL OF THEM WERE RETRACTED.” That could be taken, as it apparently was by Nash, as meaning that there were in total 2047 studies and of that population all 2047 were retracted.

        Or, it could be understood that 2047 studies out of an unspecified population were retracted and that all of the ones retracted were retracted. That’s not only unclear, but it is redundant and thus encouraged misunderstanding, but is also what you now say you intended to communicate.

        The real problem is that you do not write clearly. Your grammar and punctuation are atrocious, your wording is convoluted and awkward, and you are much more interested in proving how smart you are than in communicating your ideas clearly. Indeed, you appear to encourage misunderstanding solely for the gratification you can then gain by ridiculing your correspondents.

        Communication, GALT, involves two elements (it has more): transmission (sender, source) and reception (receiver, destination). You fail at transmission, and thus your message is lost.

        Until you improve your transmission ability, you will, alas, remain functionally illiterate.

      • GALT

        Thank you once again for the demonstration of your functional illiteracy…..it is not
        necessary to keep doing it…….

        You can’t READ…….my writing has nothing to do with it……..

        But here is a clue about what to do ( what actual intelligent people do ) when things
        are unclear……….and you really want to understand……..

        You ask questions………

        What did you do………you speculated on the position and location of Bryan’s tongue…..
        and then……..offer an irrelevant rambling…….adding crap to the original crap that YOU
        should have had ( again, intellect is needed ) questions about…….

        And YOU can’t READ MINDS!!!!!!!!! either.

        And NOW you are trying to defend all this……

        Here’s a hint…you see my name……you run away…..or step up and
        actually show some intelligence?

      • Charlie Tall

        @GALT

        GALT: “And YOU can’t READ MINDS!!!!!!!!! either.”

        When one observes a child misbehaving, one does not need to read the brat’s mind to know that he’s acting out.

        The same can be said for your pompous pronouncements and their motivations.

        Also like a child, it is obvious that you think the little knowledge and experience you have are all there is to be had.

        You see, GALT, you do not understand that which you have yet to learn.

        Run away, indeed! I’ve dealt with many arrogant, self-styled geniuses in the past. You are nothing new.

        GALT, what’s with the nine exclamation points? The words inappropriately written in all caps? Do they make you feel more assertive? More important? Smarter?

      • GALT

        Your continuing idiotic posturing is expected….feel free to keep doing it……
        just remember the warning and the fact that you have been carved up,
        chewed up and spit out…….and that I can do that at will with you anytime I want…..
        because if this is what you GOT…….. ( notice all your supporters…….)

        Sadly for you I happen to be the real thing……..but I don’t think you know
        what real is…….so consider what happened here today……..

        A staph writer was completely exposed………as a functional illiterate and a liar,
        from a source provided by Mr. Livingston……..in response to a question I asked
        on my very first post…….” one which you…….genius killer…..should have asked…
        if you had a brain that functioned in a logical way….”

        Mr Livingston was then challenged regarding this writer……his editorial policy…..
        and this sites ( his site ) commitment to the TRUTH.

        Please note he has not responded……an we are not strangers with respect to
        these questions to him………

        Also note that being “anti GALT” is a very large group……….who have LEARNED
        to heed the warning you have been given……….

        Feel free to posture again……your lesson for today has ended.

        Further instruction is available on request……..

      • Kate8

        GALT – You truly are pompous and arrogant.

        There is far more to life than what you believe. It’s true… you cannot understand that which you have yet to experience, as Charlie observed.

        It seems really important to you that others share you views. That is a sign of someone who needs validation for some reason.

        A little humility can go a long way. One day you will feel really embarrassed for the condescension you’ve shown others who have learned to expand their awareness into realms not commonly perceived. What may seem like foolishness to you is beautiful and joyous to another.

      • GALT

        No kate……..all I did was ask a question……

        something any one of you “idiots” could have and should have done…….

        That is ALL that has happened here…..

        The REAST, you have done to yourselves……….and you look really STUPID continuing to DENY it………….heed the warning……your delusion REALITY will be safe……..

      • Kate8

        GALT – And just what IS this all-important question you keep harping about?

        We can keep asking all kinds of questions, and we do. The real question is, are there any answers? And how do we know which answer is the ‘correct’ one?

        Intellect is only a small part of being, and a very limited part, at that. When we overblow its importance, we miss the best stuff because we can’t see it.

        Your opinions are not the problem here. It’s your attitude and your rudeness. You seem so insecure that you find other ideas threatening to you, and you just come off as a jerk.

      • GALT

        kate do you know where you are?

        did you not read the article by Bryan Nash?

        do you actually know what any of this has been about?

        my question was answered by Bob Livingston…..and he only has one post here….

        my question was my first post here………it precede’s Bob’s……… scroll up

        find it……learn…..

      • Kate8

        GALT – Good grief. You really are a jerk.

        If you didn’t keep just talking in circles, you might seem half-way coherent.

        As it is, it’s too much trouble to make sense of your ramblings.

      • GALT

        P.S. kate my dear……there is a summation at the end of this thread……by me…regarding the “actual abstract” and the actual facts involved here……so other than kinetic1′s response…….none of the opinion’s expressed here……deal with the abstract…..which the
        functional illterate bryan nash couldn’t comprehend……..

        P.P.S. there are time stamps with every post………they show the order in which things
        actually happened……..in REALITY…..although maybe not your’s…….with all that
        different “paradigm” stuff, you are experiencing…..

        P.P.P.S. as of this post there are…..

        74 Responses to “Two-Thirds Of Studies Are Fraudulent”

        You have yet to actually understand what the topic is…..or why that headline is a LIE!

        Show me something girl………

      • Kate8

        GALT – You, ‘my dear’, are a legend in your own mind.

        I guess the only way you can feel intelligent is by insulting others.

        That kills any desire for futher discourse.

        Show you something? I could, but you wouldn’t like it.

      • GALT

        gee Kate, you are just so intellectually overwhelming….you made a liar out of me….

        the truth is NOW….this is my last post……to you…..bye again!!!!!!! ( and forever…well one can hope….usually it takes several thrashings….we shall actually have to see how stupid you really are. )

  • JimH

    Two-thirds of studies are fraudulent. Studies show 42% of all statistics are made up.

  • Chuck

    There was a study several months ago that people who ate more red meat died sooner. I’m not sure if that was the conclusion of the study or what the news media decided to report. After that, critics said that the people who ate more red meat also ate more total calories, fewer vegetables, fewer vitamins, did less exercise, and drank more alcohol. So it’s somewhat helpful to have alternative viewpoints. But then are they right?

    One big thing now is whether various alternative medical treatments are valid. They claim to cure many diseases very cheaply. Are they quackery or are they a big threat to huge multi-billion dollar drug and medical businesses? Everybody probably cites studies, but how accurate are they? And even if alternative therapies are valid, there are probably some that aren’t.

    Another big area is global warming – true or false. There we have climategate, which showed that pro-global warming people pressured scientific publications to not publish contrary studies.

  • Charles A

    That’s why our food supply has devolved to trash with no nutrient value. The self-styled food police have cited fake studies to convince idiots to eliminate everything that has any food value, in favor of vegetables and soy. The result: an epidemic of obesity. Strange that we never had that problem before the “health food” craze got started.

  • 45caliber

    All “research” groups are paid to discover the results that the people paying for the study wants. If they do not come up with the required results (and some do not) they don’t get paid and the study is destroyed. It is the exact same way with polls. Never believe that a study is “independent” – it isn’t.

    • TML

      “All “research” groups are paid to discover the results that the people paying for the study wants. If they do not come up with the required results (and some do not) they don’t get paid and the study is destroyed.”

      Sounds pretty reasonable to me. I’d think its normal for someone to try and prove their hypothesis, and abandon the research if it proves false. I have no doubt that some studies may be subjectively influenced, and thus derail from the scientific method, but I doubt the majority of conclusions from studies should be deemed “fraudulent”.

      In the realm of science, for one to take the published results of a new study immediately as fact, or for a government to make policy on new conclusions, is simply foolish… and to accept the conclusion of any scientific study being pushed by a politician, such as Al Gore’s, is down-right stupid.

  • TML

    “A new study shows that studies can’t be trusted.”

    The following sentence is true.
    The previous sentence is false.

    That’s pretty much what the study of studies amounts to.

    If it’s true that most studies are retracted under scrutiny, I’d call that science.

    • GALT

      Cooooolllll……so where is this study of studies? ( continued below to a mis hit button )

  • GALT

    Cooooolllll……so where is this study of studies?

    According to the actual abstract this was…….

    “A detailed review of all 2,047 biomedical and life-science research articles indexed by PubMed as retracted on May 3, 2012

  • GALT

    One final note regarding the FACTS here………I added and additional link which is
    also available in the link that Mr. Livingston provided in his response to my original QUESTION………which leads to the supporting evidence for the article…….I’m sorry,
    the “actual abstract”………

    The first is the EIGHT specific publications from which these 2047 articles were retracted.
    The second provides the names of all the individual scientists whose articles were partially or fully retracted.
    The last provides the top ten ( or there abouts ) scientists whose NAME appeared
    in conjunction with these 2047 articles………

    The first name is J. Bolt who appears 80 times……..out of the 2047.

    So far, using various search parameters I have not been able to get a single hit for
    that name……

    Also as a final thought……since this category is limited to……..

    biomedical and life-science research articles

    this suggests to ME………big pharma….or entrepreneurial start up hype……

    This entire thing will not be publically available ( in total ) for six months…….but it
    does sound like something that Mr. Livingston, considering the subject matter, should
    be a subscriber to?????

    Bob…..I know you are not actually paying that idiot……but you can do better.

  • Stuart Shepherd

    Lies, damn lies, and statistics….and damn lies turned INTO statistics! Where will it all end. Next thing you know Nancy pelosi will be telling us that foodstamps and unemployment benefits comprise economic activity. Oops, my bad, she already did that! Thank God Obama never lies!

Bottom
close[X]

Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to PersonalLiberty.com,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.