Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Management
Other Health Conditions and Diabetes
Cholesterol and Statins
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Oldvatr" data-source="post: 2318046" data-attributes="member: 196898"><p>That can be a double edged sword. Bit like the SCOTUS problem in the USA, Or choosing a jury in Al Capone's trial.</p><p>It needs a systemic procedure that can hopefully eliminate conscious bias, and in the past this was done by using peer review where the peers were other individuals who had the technical experience in their fields to be in a position to debate sensibly about disputed claims. But the rise of the epidemiological sciences has removed that requirement and nowadays it is done by the authors themselves acting as peer reviewers. In the case of the medicinal studies it was the aspect of commercial sensitivity of the raw data that meant that only the drug companies performing the study had access to the report prior to publication, with the obvious problems that incestuous behaviour would attract.</p><p>Academic studies used to be performed by graduates, and peer reviewed by the professors of another university, but now postgrad reports are only reviewed by the tutor and then published, I have seen a lot of recent papers where this occurs, usually noted for their verbose pomposity because the postgrad is trying to impress the examination board for their degree and uses over-complicated language to cover up their inexperience This is not peer review.</p><p></p><p>This is particularly relevant to the Cholesterol saga which is IMHO totally under the control of the drug companies selling the drugs and performing the research. Until they agree to open up their data for independent peer review then we will continue to have doubts as expressed within this forum. The only study I have seen recently was the Harvard Nurses Study (still ongoing) and that is one that is helping to make the debate more transparent. I think the global effort to solve the Covid pandemic will also help to open things up, except that the media seems to be working against the science and accepting any old story that they can hang a headline on.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Oldvatr, post: 2318046, member: 196898"] That can be a double edged sword. Bit like the SCOTUS problem in the USA, Or choosing a jury in Al Capone's trial. It needs a systemic procedure that can hopefully eliminate conscious bias, and in the past this was done by using peer review where the peers were other individuals who had the technical experience in their fields to be in a position to debate sensibly about disputed claims. But the rise of the epidemiological sciences has removed that requirement and nowadays it is done by the authors themselves acting as peer reviewers. In the case of the medicinal studies it was the aspect of commercial sensitivity of the raw data that meant that only the drug companies performing the study had access to the report prior to publication, with the obvious problems that incestuous behaviour would attract. Academic studies used to be performed by graduates, and peer reviewed by the professors of another university, but now postgrad reports are only reviewed by the tutor and then published, I have seen a lot of recent papers where this occurs, usually noted for their verbose pomposity because the postgrad is trying to impress the examination board for their degree and uses over-complicated language to cover up their inexperience This is not peer review. This is particularly relevant to the Cholesterol saga which is IMHO totally under the control of the drug companies selling the drugs and performing the research. Until they agree to open up their data for independent peer review then we will continue to have doubts as expressed within this forum. The only study I have seen recently was the Harvard Nurses Study (still ongoing) and that is one that is helping to make the debate more transparent. I think the global effort to solve the Covid pandemic will also help to open things up, except that the media seems to be working against the science and accepting any old story that they can hang a headline on. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Management
Other Health Conditions and Diabetes
Cholesterol and Statins
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…