Yeah.. You know you would think that wouldn't you.. We all know that certain people who's studies have been refuted have been thrown out to the wolves, but not all of them.. They guys tha said depression was caused by seratonin.. Their hypothesis, the basis for all SSRI & SNRI drugs was refuted in 1983..Dinky wrote:Even if journals are incorrect / evidentially findings from scientific investigations are published, the whole point is that to publish something that does not work puts your reputation and credibility at stake. Also, the ideas of journals is such that peers in the scientific community use the information and repeat the experiments (review the information) as way to validate the methods....these may eventually become standardised methods e.g in pharmacopeias which the pharma industry use. Perhaps I am being very naive, or the company I work for does things properly?!?!?!
And then there's all those major researchers done for fraud every day, the companies who keep drugs on sale literally until the costs of paying out on compensation outweighs the profit from said drug..
If your study is in line with what you are supposed to say, your fall from grace will be limited. If it goes against the grain, you will be known about by everyone who will listen.. Most people don't know that the guy who linked HIV to AIDS was later done for scientific fraud, but they all know Andrew Wakefield and the famous MMR study, and even at that the facts were misrepresented, if anything the way he was treated after linking a certain type of intestinal damage to the MMR jab (which just so happened to be common in those with autism) would have given him reason to think he was on to something.. After all, we all know mercury is a neurotoxin than certainly isn't that good for you, and aluminium is related to dementia and Alzheimer's, they're both found in that vaccine.. But that wasn't even touched on..
The sad truth is that not all of these transgressions are treated equal. As I pointed out above, pharmaceutical companies are permitted to break the law and set up shell companies to take the hit for them, they are literally deemed too big to fail. And they are some of the largest contributors to presidential campaigns, they have more of a say on our food supply than each country does..
The initial intentions of pharmaceuticals were obviously honourable, but when companies get that large, and are exposed to be using such underhand methods to keep themselves that big, it is prudent to keep your wits about you. After all, it's your health that pays the price if you get put on a drug that may have a terminal side effect.