[Foundation-l] Misplaced Reliance, was Re: Paid editing, was Re: Ban and...

[Risker]

On 31 October 2010 21:53, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:

> > On 31 October 2010 21:27, Fred Bauder <fredbaud at fairpoint.net> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> > I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is
> >> mentioned
> >> > it
> >> > is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is
> >> > required.
> >> >
> >> > Risker/Anne
> >>
> >> The history of this issue has involved manufacturers taking control of
> >> the studies to the extent that unfavorable results were sometimes not
> >> published while favorable results were. Journal editors cracked down on
> >> that, see:
> >>
> >> http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/165/6/786
> >>
> >> Fred
> >>
> >>
> > Well, that has nothing to do with who paid for the study. It has to do
> > with
> > whether or not they reported all of the studies that they did. The two
> > are
> > not connected. What happens, too, when studies are carried out but the
> > scientists cannot find someone to peer review them or publish them, even
> > with massive critique? This happens a lot. Does that mean the study is
> > unreported, or simply that nobody wants to waste time or space on them?
> >
> > Risker/Anne
> >
>
> You don't seem to have read the cited article. And to be changing the
> subject. Peer review decides what is to be published, based on quality
> and significance. Errors are made as scientists hold views as to what
> that is at any particular time and venue which may be more or less
> enlightened.
>
> Fred
>


I read it, Fred. And the subject of the thread was "should we be saying that
the drug company paid for the research"; at least that's what it was when I
commented.

My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research.
Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.

If there is a specific controversy related to the quality of the research
that was done, or the manner in which it was conducted and/or reported, then
*if there are reliable sources that discuss such a controversy*, that may be
significant and/or relevant enough to add to the article.

Risker/Anne