80% of the Data in Chinese Clinical Trials Have Been Fabricated

[Alue]

A Chinese government investigation has revealed that more than 80 percent of the data used in clinical trials of new pharmaceutical drugs have been "fabricated".

The report uncovered fraudulent behaviour at almost every level, and showed that some pharmaceutical companies had hidden or deleted records of potentially adverse side effects, and tampered with data that didn't meet their desired outcomes.

http://www.sciencealert.com/80-of-the-data-in-chinese-clinical-trial-is-fabricated

 

[Ecip]

I'm sorta kinda not surprised..

 

[canyonero]

Should pin this in the alternative treatments section.

 

[Dutchy]

I'm sorta kinda not surprised..

I'm not surprised at all lol.

 

[mxmpc]

As a Chinese, I am surprised that the percentage is too low

 

[t-man]

Sadly, the tiger penis didn't cure my tinnitus. But the rhino horn did give me the massive hard-on they promised.

 

[Contrast]

@threefirefour

 

[threefirefour]

I'm sorta kinda not surprised..

I hate to admit it, but im not too surprised tbh.

 

[frohike]

probably between 30% to 50% of the Chinese graduate students I work with copy and paste from the Internet into their research papers

Quoted from How can I convince graduate students in China to not copy/paste from the Internet into their research papers?

 

[Contrast]

http://www.doc88.com/p-3993710989438.html

GABA hypothesis would explain why some people get hearing loss and tinnitus and others don't.
or why people all their life with HF hearing loss develop tinnitus later in life.

But I still don't understand how cutting the AN would add up with this hypothesis, since this study is from China what if it was an outright fabrication?

Still I'm going to assume they are not fabrications and something is missing.

 

[CricketEars]

Was this study about the 80% done in China though?

 

[Dr. Jay Hobbs]

I am surprised. I tend to follow a "Trust but verify" process. Unfortunately, the only way to verify thorough fraudulent data is to reproduce the results. When it comes to techniques within my field, I do this. When outside my field, we first look for good data reporting, then result replication by someone else.

Case in point: I recall being asked my opinion on a paper on ear acupuncture with something like 80% T reduction average. After reviewing, I was amazed at the results and said it was worth trying, since the risk was very low, but suspicious due to the lack of replication by others and the sketchy data reporting style. Now I likely have my answer as to the reason.