BodyRecomposition Support Forums  

Go Back   BodyRecomposition Support Forums > Miscellaneous > Miscellaneous Discussion
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Unread 10-04-2016, 01:08 AM
semipartial semipartial is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Location: The Netherlands
Posts: 298
Default 80% of clinical trial data in China is fabricated

Couldn't find the real report, but (if it's true) it's shocking to say the least.

http://www.iflscience.com/health-and...na-fabricated/
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Unread 10-04-2016, 05:47 AM
johnc johnc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 102
Default

People lie when there's money on the line?
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Unread 10-04-2016, 06:50 AM
BigPecsPeter BigPecsPeter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,275
Default

It is true that A VERY large percentage of studies are nonreplicable. That doesn't necessarily mean fabricated.

There's a lot of pressure on researchers to produce positive data. Negative data is BORING. It doesn't encourage much funding.

Often, to produce positive data, a study method will be repeated 10+ times until it gives the desired results. This OUTLYING study will then be published.

Nonreplicability in science is a very real and serious issue.

Further, it would not surprise me in the slightest if bad studies are also the rule rather than the exception in body composition and applied physiology related research.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Unread 10-04-2016, 11:48 AM
MrRippedZilla MrRippedZilla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 104
Default

You don't have to look all the way to China to find these issues...Jacob Wilson, HMB, anabolic results. In fact, Jacob Wilson's lab is well known for producing misgiving (false) data due to methodological issues (not disclosing stuff they should be disclosing).
Kind of makes the whole peer review process look like a joke too...but I digress.

From a practical standpoint as long as your willing to look at the published data as a WHOLE and your open minded enough to understand the drawbacks of clinical trials (real life applicability, not answering certain questions related to drug use, etc) then you should be fine.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Unread 10-04-2016, 02:33 PM
johnc johnc is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 102
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrRippedZilla View Post
Jacob Wilson, HMB, anabolic results. In fact, Jacob Wilson's lab is well known for producing misgiving (false) data due to methodological issues (not disclosing stuff they should be disclosing).
I got slayed on another forum for daring to question that study. I said back then that in another year nobody will even be talking about HMB-FA... and sure enough...
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Unread 10-04-2016, 03:33 PM
MrRippedZilla MrRippedZilla is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 104
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnc View Post
I got slayed on another forum for daring to question that study. I said back then that in another year nobody will even be talking about HMB-FA... and sure enough...
Common reaction from the "evidence based" posers who assume that all published trials are equal to being facts and therefore you must be a moron to dispute them

It's not isolated to Jacob's lab either. Plenty of valid criticisms have been made regarding other areas of research and, once you to start to dig into it all, it kind of makes the "hierarchy of evidence" look like a joke in reality.

I fee sorry for the general public who doesn't have the time to really dig into all this and develop that level of rational thinking that it takes to cut out the bad from the good.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Unread 10-15-2016, 10:43 AM
BigPecsPeter BigPecsPeter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 2,275
Default

I completely missed that China was specifically named in the title.

In fact, even in the United Kingdom, it has recently been estimated that as much as 70% of all published studies are nonreplicable.

Field-wise, the prime culprit was Psychology. I guess this is unsurprising.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.