martes, 14 de febrero de 2012

La Religión de la Ciencia - Las Sagradas Escrituras de la Ciencia II

 "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."


En el artículo anterior de esta serie, hablé de los estudios en el área de influencia de los transgénicos. Por supuesto los devotos del Establishment Científico no hacen distingos tan sutiles. Para ellos El Estudio no tiene fronteras. Pero para presentar el mayor detalle posible, me voy a referir a estudios en otras ramas de la medicina y cuyos resultados convienen a otras ramas de la industria. 


Caso 5:

"In light of new evidence that has emerged clearing Dr Wakefield of the allegations that he fabricated study data involving MMR vaccines and symptoms of autism, Dr Wakefield is now publicly demanding a retraction from the British Medical Journal and author Brian Deer. Documents just made public reveal that another medical research team which included a senior pathologist independently documented evidence of a possible MMR vaccine - autism link 14 months before Dr Wakefield's paper first appears in The Lancet -- based on several of the same children appearing in Dr Wakefield's study.

The British Medical Journal also failed to disclose that its own finances are largely funded by vaccine manufacturers who fill the journal with paid advertising, and that such financial ties may have influenced the journal's decision to attempt to destroy the reputation of a researcher whose findings threatened the profits of its top sponsors. If you follow the money in this story, in other words, it leads right to the editors of BMJ, whose salaries are effectively financed by vaccine manufacturers. This all-important conflict of interest is almost never discussed in the mainstream media, by the way."  
Referencia

"Follow the money" es un adagio en inglés que es cierto en prácticamente el 100% de los casos. Aquí vemos el mismo conflicto de intereses que ya mencioné en el artículo anterior: cómo estar bien con Dios y con el Diablo al mismo tiempo. Y resulta que el BMJ es el Nature de la profesión médica. O en palabras de una amiga mía, "es palabra sagrada lo que se publica ahí". Puede ser todo lo sagrada que quieran. El problema es su veracidad.


Caso 6:

"It's being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer's speakers' bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years.

As a result of Dr. Reuben's faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 "scientific" papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.

Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben's faked studies even though this journal claims to be a "scientific" medical journal based on peer review."   Referencia


El autor de el artículo citado hace comentarios muy importantes:

"Don't forget that the drug companies openly supported Dr. Scott Reuben's research. They paid him, in fact, to keep on fabricating studies.

The drug companies claim to be innocent in all this, but behind the scenes they had to have known what was going on. Dr. Reuben's research was just too consistently favorable to drug company interests to be scientifically legitimate. If a drug company wanted to "prove" that their drug was good for some new application, all they had to do was ask Dr. Reuben to come up with the research (wink wink). "Here's another fifty thousand dollars to study whether our drug is good for post-surgical pain (wink).""



Caso 7:

"Reuters London reports that Dutch psychologist Diederik Stapel, who worked at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, has confessed to falsifying research studies on numerous occasions. Blaming the fact that he felt constant pressure to "score points, to publish, to always have to be better," Stapel fudged data and basically made up studies, which were later peer-reviewed and published in reputable journals like Science.

Remember how The Lancet treated Dr. Andrew Wakefield when his work was called into question by outsiders with ulterior motives? Nobody was ever able to prove that Dr. Wakefield's research into the MMR vaccine and autism was falsified. But thanks to intense political pressure, The Lancet pulled his study anyway, and the media continues to echo the lie that Dr. Wakefield is a fraud.

But in this case, Stapel's work, after admittedly being falsified by the man himself, is only a fleeting "concern." Because after all, the supposedly reputable journals that negligently published his work do not want to face further scrutiny for admitting that they messed up in a major way. And so it goes into the circus of mainstream medical science, which is more concerned with preserving an image and fulfilling an agenda than it is with pursuing the truth."
  Referencia


Los devotos del Establishment Científico creen que en el mágico reino de Descartes, el dinero no vale. No es posible, dicen, falsificar la aprobación de los colegas, ni "probar" cosas que son dudosas o aún completamente falsas. Y, supongo, también creen que la industria les regala carretadas de dinero por pura admiración y devoción.

Y saben y defienden que los estudios cuestan millones de USD pero ni se les ocurre pensar de dónde vienen esos millones y qué se espera a cambio.

2 comentarios:

  1. Esto no es por religión sino política. De verdad tu concepto no me gusta. Falsificar datos no tiene que ver nada con la ortodoxia, es fraude y punto! Y busca beneficiar por razones política a cierto sector. Y este tipo de cosas las vas a encontrar en cualquier área. Y no digo que no las denuncies pero confundes con eso de la ciencia como religión. No tiene nada que ver.
    Es como si dijeras que los valores son religión porque como en la vida real pues son relativos y además muchas veces no se practican correctamente entonces pues es cosa de ortodoxia. La Ciencia no es religión.

    ResponderEliminar
    Respuestas
    1. Tu disgusto por el término "religión" te ciega.

      Creer en los estudios ciegamente asumiendo que son necesariamente ciertos, es dogma.

      Demostrar que hay estudios no solamente no ciertos, sino falseados intencionalmente y pasados por las narices de los árbitros, demuestra que los estudios no son lo absolutos que el dogma antecitado pinta.

      Y si los estudios no son definitivos ni absolutos, hay muchas cosas ciertas fuera de la ortodoxia.

      Deshazte de tu alergia a la palabra "religión" y discuteme en base a estos puntos resumidos.

      Ya en otro momento hablaremos de cuántos dogmas hacen una religión.

      Eliminar