A bunch of cutthroat greedy and phony researchers making a financial killing. Of course they're going to play it up as a SLAPP, there's big money in it for them.

Johnson & Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/johnson-johnson-sues-researchers-who-linked-talc-cancer-2023-07-13/

On 15-July-23 12:40 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> A bunch of cutthroat greedy and phony researchers making a financial killing. Of course they're going to play it up as a SLAPP, there's big money in it for them.
>
> Johnson & Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer
>
> https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/johnson-johnson-sues-researchers-who-linked-talc-cancer-2023-07-13/

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/

On Friday, July 14, 2023 at 10:46:01 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 15-July-23 12:40 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > A bunch of cutthroat greedy and phony researchers making a financial killing. Of course they're going to play it up as a SLAPP, there's big money in it for them.
> >
> > Johnson & Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer
> >
> > https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/johnson-johnson-sues-researchers-who-linked-talc-cancer-2023-07-13/
> https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/

Good find.

On 15-July-23 4:05 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:46:01 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 15-July-23 12:40 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>>> A bunch of cutthroat greedy and phony researchers making a financial killing. Of course they're going to play it up as a SLAPP, there's big money in it for them.
>>>
>>> Johnson & Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer
>>>
>>> https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/johnson-johnson-sues-researchers-who-linked-talc-cancer-2023-07-13/
>>
>> https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
>
> There's a theory that medical education is designed to prevent medical students from developing a scientific mind-set.
>
> If you worry about past decisions, and spend time thinking how they might have been improved you can end up getting obsessed with patients who have died.
> Medical practitioners are unusually prone to suicide, so their training actively discourages this.
>
> Some doctors do transcend their training, but there is a lot of rubbish in the medical literature.
>
> Peer review is a lot better than no error checking at all, but it isn't remotely perfect.
>

Damn it, I again found the character sequence that discards my carefully
crafted response, with no comment from Thunderbird. I still don't know
what that sequence is.

That aside, try again:

I doubt that most clinicians are involved in medical research, or that
most medical researchers are also clinicians.

When your general practitioner (a.k.a. family doctor) tells you that you
should not take medication X because of adverse long term effects, it's
unlikely that they've actually read the relevant research papers, even
less likely that they've assessed the quality of the research, and less
likely still that they've considered that the research may be fraudulent.

This, unfortunately, makes any widely prescribed medication an
attractive target for someone seeking to make a name for themselves by
engaging in fraudulent medical research. If the medication is mainly
taken by the elderly, the 'researcher' need not even be concerned about
being hoist on their own petard.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 4:51:14 AM UTC-4, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 15-July-23 4:05 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:46:01 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 15-July-23 12:40 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> >>> A bunch of cutthroat greedy and phony researchers making a financial killing. Of course they're going to play it up as a SLAPP, there's big money in it for them.
> >>>
> >>> Johnson & Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer
> >>>
> >>> https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/johnson-johnson-sues-researchers-who-linked-talc-cancer-2023-07-13/
> >>
> >> https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
> >
> > There's a theory that medical education is designed to prevent medical students from developing a scientific mind-set.
> >
> > If you worry about past decisions, and spend time thinking how they might have been improved you can end up getting obsessed with patients who have died.
> > Medical practitioners are unusually prone to suicide, so their training actively discourages this.
> >
> > Some doctors do transcend their training, but there is a lot of rubbish in the medical literature.
> >
> > Peer review is a lot better than no error checking at all, but it isn't remotely perfect.
> >
> Damn it, I again found the character sequence that discards my carefully
> crafted response, with no comment from Thunderbird. I still don't know
> what that sequence is.
>
> That aside, try again:
>
> I doubt that most clinicians are involved in medical research, or that
> most medical researchers are also clinicians.
>
> When your general practitioner (a.k.a. family doctor) tells you that you
> should not take medication X because of adverse long term effects, it's
> unlikely that they've actually read the relevant research papers, even
> less likely that they've assessed the quality of the research, and less
> likely still that they've considered that the research may be fraudulent.

That would not be practical, the practitioner has plenty of other considerations to deal with. That's why when it comes to medications they strictly adhere to the guidelines and information provided by the pharmaceutical manufacturer. Some of the data sheets are quite extensive covering details of the pharmacology as well as clinical studies, and they annotate into the research literature. You won't see that kind of detail from a generic manufacturer, but you do with most mainstream pharmaceuticals. The data sheet is a small book.

Even then , many doctors, usually with many years of clinical experience, have strong opinions making them skeptical of some of the guidelines.

>
> This, unfortunately, makes any widely prescribed medication an
> attractive target for someone seeking to make a name for themselves by
> engaging in fraudulent medical research. If the medication is mainly
> taken by the elderly, the 'researcher' need not even be concerned about
> being hoist on their own petard.

People will do anything for money.

>
> Sylvia.

On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 9:50:01 AM UTC-4, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 6:51:14 PM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 15-July-23 4:05 pm, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
> > > On Saturday, July 15, 2023 at 12:46:01 AM UTC+10, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >> On 15-July-23 12:40 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
> > >>> A bunch of cutthroat greedy and phony researchers making a financial killing. Of course they're going to play it up as a SLAPP, there's big money in it for them.
> > >>>
> > >>> Johnson & Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer
> > >>>
> > >>> https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/johnson-johnson-sues-researchers-who-linked-talc-cancer-2023-07-13/
> > >>
> > >> https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
> > >
> > > There's a theory that medical education is designed to prevent medical students from developing a scientific mind-set.
> > >
> > > If you worry about past decisions, and spend time thinking how they might have been improved you can end up getting obsessed with patients who have died.
> > > Medical practitioners are unusually prone to suicide, so their training actively discourages this.
> > >
> > > Some doctors do transcend their training, but there is a lot of rubbish in the medical literature.
> > >
> > > Peer review is a lot better than no error checking at all, but it isn't remotely perfect.
> > >
> > Damn it, I again found the character sequence that discards my carefully
> > crafted response, with no comment from Thunderbird. I still don't know
> > what that sequence is.
> >
> > That aside, try again:
> >
> > I doubt that most clinicians are involved in medical research, or that
> > most medical researchers are also clinicians.
> Clinicians have access to patients, and medical research runs on patients..
>
> The medical novelist - Colin Douglas - makes the point that clinicians get power and prestige from publishing medical research, and is decidedly satircal about their competence and motivation.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Douglas_(novelist)
> > When your general practitioner (a.k.a. family doctor) tells you that you
> > should not take medication X because of adverse long term effects, it's
> > unlikely that they've actually read the relevant research papers, even
> > less likely that they've assessed the quality of the research, and less
> > likely still that they've considered that the research may be fraudulent.
> But they are plugged into the larger medical network, some of whom take these matters seriously. Admittedly the only doctor I know all that well ran breast cancer clinical trials and around world and his wife - a trained statistician - ran the local cancer registry. My youngest brother ended up married to a medical professor, so I may be a bit optimistic about the rest of the profession.
> > This, unfortunately, makes any widely prescribed medication an
> > attractive target for someone seeking to make a name for themselves by
> > engaging in fraudulent medical research. If the medication is mainly
> > taken by the elderly, the 'researcher' need not even be concerned about
> > being hoist on their own petard.
> Even researchers eventually get elderly. It would be nice if the fraudulent ones got lynched by irate patients or their relatives, but it doesn't seem to happen.

U.S. has a thing called the Food and Drug administration. It would be very rare to get fraudulent trial data by them. They participate in many of the important trials, putting them under microscopic scrutiny as the trial is in process. The approval process is very extensive.

Talcum powder is not a pharmaceutical.

>
> --
> Bill Sloman, Sydney

On 2023/07/14 7:45 a.m., Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 15-July-23 12:40 am, Fred Bloggs wrote:
>> A bunch of cutthroat greedy and phony researchers making a financial
>> killing. Of course they're going to play it up as a SLAPP, there's big
>> money in it for them.
>>
>> Johnson & Johnson sues researchers who linked talc to cancer
>>
>> https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/johnson-johnson-sues-researchers-who-linked-talc-cancer-2023-07-13/
>
> https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/07/05/time-to-assume-that-health-research-is-fraudulent-until-proved-otherwise/
>
>

Harvard Prof's (on academic leave now) bad research papers...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Tm3Yx4HWI

Next one might question Climate Change research papers? Especially the
papers that don't share the base data?

How does it end?

The abolition of paywalls to research data would be a start.

John ;-#)#