Leemour t1_irfkjgd wrote
Reply to comment by DeliciousCanary4711 in “Scientific progress is thwarted by the ownership of knowledge.” How Karl Popper’s philosophy of science can overcome clinical corruption. by IAI_Admin
Meta studies exist today as a means to mitigate the issue. Typically what gets into a meta study and is verified, then it gets further studied and researches build on those findings, but if it doesn't make into the study or serious faults are pointed out, then it is either ignored or someone tries to falsify/verify the claims of the original study.
This issue is being addressed; it's not a growing, awkward problem like climate change or overconsumption.
There is also an issue with resources. Just how much resources are we to waste just to verify the verification of a verification, etc. ? Some research is much more expensive than others, so we can't just have the same blanket standard for all.
It is a problem, but it is not like modern science is anywhere close to fraud; we just have an unprecedented wealth of new reports and too few people with not enough resources to verify each.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irh0urd wrote
> It is a problem, but it is not like modern science is anywhere close to fraud
Within certain fields ie psychology, the meta studies mentioned in OP are showing 50% non reproducibility. That is a major problem.
Think about it - was oxycontin nonaddictive? Do SSRIs work? Vioxx? Phen-Phen? Adderall?
There is a crisis ongoing.
Leemour t1_iri00z4 wrote
No, my man... meta studies are just doing their job in that case and are weeding out the nonsense from the good research.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_iriwitk wrote
I thought peer review was supposed to weed out the nonsense, not a meta study decades after the subject causes a massive wave of fatalities?
Leemour t1_irix8bn wrote
No, peer review =/= metastudy =/= drug approval. These are different processes with different functions and responsibilities. Not to mention therapists don't rely on questionable research in psychology without informing their patients that they are taking part in a study or questionable method that has X% success rate with possible complications.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_iriyfep wrote
>therapists don't rely on questionable research in psychology
Yes they do, that's the point - whole medical industries are based on fictions.
Leemour t1_iriywex wrote
Do you even understand what the article is saying? This has nothing to do with "whole medical industries are based on fictions" or the efficacy of antidepressants.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irizjok wrote
Yes I can read, can you?
> The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals [17], and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades [14]. The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities [15, 16], and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood [64,65,66]. The idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue antidepressant medication and may discourage people from discontinuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs [67, 68].
Leemour t1_irj0iuh wrote
I can't believe I have to point this out: what do you think professional means here? Researchers, therapists or both, what is the difference? In what world can the therapist force a patient off of a demonstrably effective antidepressant (despite the patients wishes!!!) when such comprehensive metastudy was lacking? General public view does not coincide with scientific consensus/discussion either, so again, what part of this is telling you it's a sham?
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irj1qxi wrote
The 'scientific consensus' was and is wrong, people have been medicated with ineffective and dangerous drugs while effective treatment eg ketamine isn't being widely used for treatment. This didn't happen by accident.
Leemour t1_irj79dg wrote
That's not what the study you quoted says.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irjgecr wrote
Yes the last post was my original opinion backed by the study excerpt I helpfully posted for your education previous to that.
Welcome to philosophy.
Leemour t1_irjkqop wrote
It does not support your conclusions, that is the problem.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irjmnvf wrote
The whole serotonin theory of depression is false but the $20,000,000,000 SSRI industry marches on. It's a very clear case of corrupt science.
Worshiping science is unscientific and leads to immoral outcomes, you should stop doing that.
Leemour t1_irjpa50 wrote
Alright tinfoil hatter. Totally wasnt trying to tell you that you need to read carefully what researchers publish, that peer review is not the same thing as doing a meta study and all of this is separate from what the process of the medical community and drug administration selecting their treatment methods and drugs.
The meta study is major in the sense that it debunks seratonin theory altogether, but there were many psychologists and therapists who already knew that. Even the article points out that this myth was/is chiefly believed by the general public. Regardless of this, the drugs go through a drug trial, which is different from all of this; they worked for a certain amount of people, so it passed the test, maybe not for the reasons we understand, but if it works, then it works and despite this study its not wise to force these drugs off the shelf when they work in drug trials.
You, not understanding the nuance of these things only proves your ignorance. The hysteria is just cherry on top.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irk7oby wrote
> tinfoil
Solid argument. No you!
Leemour t1_irk9dtt wrote
2 words is all you could read... well done
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irkfy4s wrote
You didn't present any arguments to respond to, just name calling.
Leemour t1_irkg9vh wrote
3rd time you've shown you don't actually read my posts, thanks for the waste of time.
DeliciousCanary4711 t1_irkpwim wrote
Try writing something interesting.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments