/sci/ - Science & Math

>>16201009
Ofcourse it is not ethical to assume motives. That is a nobrainer.
But one has to acknowledge that intransparency with data is a entry to allow fraud going on.

And this hits especcially hard in medicine and bioinformatics.
Because if a purely retrospective data driven study introduces highly vaguely defined exclusion criteria, it is unavoidably required to have the raw data and verify consistancy of excluded data.

And this happens pretty frequently.
Another obfuscation of data is the extrem narrowing of clinical endpoints and concealing all other endpoints that are effected by the intervention that is being observed.

No access to data will make it impossible to draw a conclusive result.
As an example, this is the exact technique that "vitamin & supplement" studies are deploying.
Vitamin X shows a benefit in heart health.
And then the study only includes highly specific heart events like a congestion.
But when congestion gets down arterial sclerosis goes up.
But they excluded arterial sclerosis.
And also in the clinical endpoints didn't account for overall mortality or morbidity, which also had no benefitial outcomes indicating, that supplementation does not improve health overall but shifts one disease expression to another.
Yet such conclusions are never drawn or at least mentioned.
And yeah sure, "but we wanted to only look at clinical outcome x" so we didn't lie, and ignored all the events we didn't care about. This study is not about health.
Which is mostly what you get, when questioning the benefits of the conclusion. Which is in my opinion not ethical not even making sense. But sure there will be a lot of people who will say: "I just looked at what I was payed for."
And people who will justify this, because god knows why.

>>16185001
Do you even read the paper?

They juming the hoops to get a statistical irrelevant maybe error related clinical benefit.

But brag with surrugate markers that not even correlate with the actual clinical outcome.
But at least they admit that this shit does nothing.
Let me quote from the conclusion:

"Antibody-based therapeutics have shown promise in other malignancies, but the lack of success in recent clinical trials in kidney cancer underscores the need to better understand resistance mechanisms and other biological barriers to their efficient use".

>the lack of success


With all the meme Antibody treatments and related articles and papers they do the same shit:
>circlejerk around tha ability to something with antibodies in vitro
>applying it literally does nothing related to clinical improvement of any disease

>woah but now we understand the limitations to our understanding of the immune system
>trust me its really promising
>and stuff
>dis time we figured it out with da antibodies
>trust the science

>>15888445
>Because the virus would no longer be active shortly after isolation

So you say if a virus leaves the host it dies, so it cannot be isolated.
But it can survive as long as 28 days on surfaces and in the air, thats why we had to mask up?
https://www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/covid-19-health/how-long-does-covid-virus-live-surfaces

And according to this university:
https://www.binghamton.edu/operations/policies/policy-1015.html
"Rabies virus can live a few hours outside the body in saliva and body fluids."

This contradicting meme of "its super fragile" but also "its super deadly" is the most retarded meme ever.

It's all excuses and memes.

>>15787181
>It's almost as if science is about making up excuses for all the shit they caused in the first place

>>15568742

>>15553757
>So even if I had to pay your medical bills out of my own pocket, I would rather pay than dig up the literature.

>>15539144

>>15411742
>Not necessary.

>>15323603