Re: Tell me what is wrong with this "study."

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
part:

Quoted message said:

Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's comparitively rare.
There's no good to anybody's career in publishing a paper that's
unrepeatable, no matter how much you're paid. This WILL catch up to
anybody.

Very true. We all know of people who have published utterly
unrepeatable studies and how their colleagues shun them and make
jokes about their research.

"Irreproducible results" are both a disaster to a researcher and a
great source of entertainment to others.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email hidden]

x-no-archive: yes

Jim Chinnis said:

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
part:

Quoted message said:

Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's comparitively rare.
There's no good to anybody's career in publishing a paper that's
unrepeatable, no matter how much you're paid. This WILL catch up to
anybody.

Very true. We all know of people who have published utterly
unrepeatable studies and how their colleagues shun them and make
jokes about their research.

"Irreproducible results" are both a disaster to a researcher and a
great source of entertainment to others.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email hidden]

Remember the guy who published research demonstrating that SIDS was
inherited? It was all [censored], and serial murderers got away with it
because his view became the expert, prevailing orthodoxy.

Same [censored] with Lyme disease at academic centers.

No science in them thar scientists.

Susan

This is the same argument used for prostitution: it's always going to
be with us.

Change the system if the system is putrid. Quit making excuses for it,
because right after the excuses for your colleagues comes your
acceptance of graft for you. If it didn't come before the excuses, that
is.

Zee

Sbharrisatsignix.netcom.com said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This is one in a continuing saga of various companies trying

desperately to get something that looks vaguely like real science to
support their product or to counter findings from real science that
questions the nutritional value of their product. <<

COMMENT:

Real science is results independently verified, no matter who pays for
them to be generated the first time.

Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's comparitively rare.
There's no good to anybody's career in publishing a paper that's
unrepeatable, no matter how much you're paid. This WILL catch up to
anybody.

Many a politician gets accused of having been "bought" , but the truth
is that there's money available on just about any side of an issue, and
no politician can get by without it (except the very, very rich in
dinky campaigns). So the average politician probably starts out
deciding whether he or she wants to be pro or antigun, pro or
antichoice, pro or anti oil drilling or whatever, and then takes the
contributions of whoever happens to be in agreement. If he doesn't, the
other side wins by default, because somebody else will.

In nutrional science you do some prelim work and you see what the
results are. If they come out in favor of this nutrient or that, you go
and see who sells it, and you see if you can get some money to look at
it some more. Is that prostitution? Not necessarily. So long as you
state your conflict of interest clearly in the work, it's just data. If
somebody independant repeats it later, it's there in the literature,
serving a useful purpose and saving everybody a lot of time and money.

So be nice. It's NOT who funds the work. It's whether or not the
results stand up to independent scrutiny.

SBH

Jim Chinnis said:

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <[email hidden]> wrote in
part:

Quoted message said:

Sure, there is "bought science." But I think it's comparitively rare.
There's no good to anybody's career in publishing a paper that's
unrepeatable, no matter how much you're paid. This WILL catch up to
anybody.

Very true. We all know of people who have published utterly
unrepeatable studies and how their colleagues shun them and make
jokes about their research.

"Irreproducible results" are both a disaster to a researcher and a
great source of entertainment to others.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email hidden]

Apparently there are plenty of "scientists" who will take the money at
the cost of professional respect from their peers. Why do you need
respect when you can have riches. Some of these guys are making
millions.

TC