Hello friends, family, (romans), countrymen,
Blogaroo
The NY Times science writer Lawrence Altman reports that studies in our
medical journals (and drugs they recommend, and the belief systems they
support or impart) are not necessarily sound - and that peer review often
fails to ensure ethics and accuracy.
From the piece:
"Recent disclosures of fraudulent or flawed studies in medical and
scientific
journals have called into question as never before the merits of their
peer-review system....Many factors can allow error, even fraud, to slip
through."
"By promoting the sanctity of peer review and using it to justify a number
of their actions in recent years, journals have added to their enormous
power....Except when gaffes are publicized, there is little scrutiny of the
quality of what journals publish."
"The journals rely on revenues from industry advertisements. But because
journals also profit handsomely by selling drug companies reprints of
articles reporting findings from large clinical trials involving their
products, editors may "face a frighteningly stark conflict of interest" in
deciding whether to publish such a study."
------
Well, yeah. I've been pointing that out for awhile, even to some of the
regulars at this site, who like to drop academic abstracts like Poseidon's
tridents, and blow their trumpets hard.
What the Times says, goes, in the sciences; so I'm pleased to let you know
that you are now allowed to consider that what scientists say, even in their
big, fat peer-reviewed journals, ain't necessarily so.
Continues here:
with Times article linked (worth reading, and that's no lie!):
www.gnn.tv/A02262
Back to top of Document