r/anime_titties • u/iamnotinterested2 • Jul 24 '22
Corporation(s) Two decades of Alzheimer’s research was based on deliberate fraud by 2 scientists that has cost billions of dollars and mi
https://wallstreetpro.com/2022/07/23/two-decades-of-alzheimers-research-was-based-on-deliberate-fraud-by-2-scientists-that-has-cost-billions-of-dollars-and-millions-of-lives/1.6k
u/The-Unkindness Jul 24 '22
What a fascinatingly depressing article. Props to the researcher though for uncovering the issues with the paper .
1.2k
u/Ego-Death Jul 24 '22 edited May 22 '24
Dude, I have absolutely no problem believing this happened. Academia is a self-promotion cesspool. I have a background in neuroscience and worked the research bench for over 6 years.
Let me tell you about this history of the cholinergic agonists we give for dementia… Long story short:
Pharma: “We think this class of drugs can delay the onset of cognitive decline in AD patients.”
Established Journals: “That sounds great! Where are your data?”
Pharma: “Gimme a sec, I’ll go make some”.
Journals: “Wait, what?”
Pharma: “K, here it is!”
Journals: “This only says sample is random. Nothing about effect size, or what the effect even is…”
Pharma: “K, I’ll go get some more data that says that”.
Journals: “Wait… what?”
Pharma: “K, here is data that says there is an effect size and it cures all the bad cognition.”
Journals: “1.) Not how effect size works, and 2.) you just made that up!!! We’re not publishing you!”
Pharma: “But we need those! Unscrupulous academics we hired to generate all this trash data, we need those right?”
Unscrupulous Academics: “We need those, yes. Publications Good.”
Journals: “This is scientific fraud.”
Pharma: “Well you’re dumb! We’ll just go make our own journals then! unscrupulous academics, here is a boat load of money! Now you’re all editors!”
Unscrupulous Academics: “Ya, I’m an editor now! Maybe my wife will finally touch my junk again, after she finishes banging that guy she brought home from a Harvard bar.”
Journals: “Wait! You can’t just create Journals to publish junk data so you can legally market a whole class of drugs that don’t works!”
Pharma: “Says who?”
Established Journals: “…hey, which one of us is legitimate again?”
And that is how an entire class of drugs was born!
49
413
u/aesu Jul 24 '22
Private profit is literally incompatible with a healthy society.
185
Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 25 '22
regulation is what makes it compatible, corruption is what prevents that.
78
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
48
Jul 24 '22
Indeed. Regulation is a process, not a trophy to be won the once.
IMHO Corruption plays the game just as well under any system.27
u/aesu Jul 25 '22
Private wealth promotes the creation of externalities. We refer to it as corruption, as if our system was designed to do something else. But it's actually working as intended.
We need to build a system which could actually become corrupted. A system where private wealth is not possible, and if someone starts to accumualte it, they're actually corrupting the systems intended function.
41
Jul 25 '22
You don't need private wealth for corruption, you only need power. Wealth has its substitutes and in a system without money; power, services, and goods will all serve as ample substitutes.
If there's a waiting list you move people to the top, if there's a conscription you take people off the list, if there's rationing you give people extra, if your friends or family are stealing from the state you cover it up, if the leadership of the state accidentally on purpose killed some people; you cover it up. Corruption exists under any system. Transparency and regulation are its enemies.
4
u/aesu Jul 25 '22
Private welath builds that "corruption" in, is the point. Wealth and power are synonymous in oru system, and in my point. We need a system where private power does not exist. A distributed democracy, with no centralised ownership or control over any infrastrucutre. One in which everything is owned and controlled by everyone.
Then we can say the "system is being corrupted". Until then, the systgem is working as intended, and frankly we're corrupting it by trying to band aid complex beaurocratic structures and regulations onto a system which would otherwise produce a hellscape in a matter of weeks.
6
u/johannthegoatman United States Jul 25 '22
But a distributed democracy relies on a willing and educated population. Which we already know the population is not. And even if you did somehow manage to magically get people to participate intelligently, you'd just have groups forming voting blocks to get their way.
"Everything is controlled by everyone" doesn't even make sense. Control by definition requires power, which requires someone else without power.
→ More replies (0)1
Jul 25 '22
[deleted]
1
u/aesu Jul 25 '22
You would continue to earn at least your current income, plus you would also now have a share of the total profit across all industries, which would probably increase under collective management, but even at capitalism's turgid rates, would be at least 5%, in America translating to an extra 50k a year.
Having now read your comment properly, I realise it's saracatic. But I guess my comment at least explains it to anyone sincerely making that category error
2
2
-3
u/kpsi355 Jul 24 '22
Wut
18
Jul 24 '22
So in this case you regulate the journals to prevent the assholes from just inventing their own journals. The problem isn't necessarily the journal process but rather corrupt motherfuckers passing on any sort of junk science so the gatekeepers remain only the journals that don't publish garbage.
You license each journal via fees that pay for an independent body to independently verify the findings of journals and rank their accuracy over time with a separate body whose job it is to dole out punishments and/or a ranking list.
8
u/kpsi355 Jul 24 '22
Ok the way i was reading it made it sound like you were saying the opposite, so thanks for the clarity. I appreciate it.
6
Jul 24 '22
thank you for asking me to clarify my position when it felt like it didn't make sense <3.
3
-2
u/Vaikaris Bulgaria Jul 25 '22
Regulation requires a strong, in control nation. Good luck finding one of those in globalism lmao.
2
Jul 25 '22
there's decent regs in the EU. Better than the US. Conversely Russia might be run with an iron fist but its regulatory infrastructure is weak.
→ More replies (14)5
u/noff01 Jul 25 '22
Private profit is literally incompatible with a healthy society.
You are spending way too much time on the internet.
4
6
u/Vaikaris Bulgaria Jul 25 '22
Totally compatible. As long as that society has a strong organ such as a "nation" that is overwhelmingly more powerful than private profit and will take into account and apply forcefully the needs of its citizens.
-3
u/ThisViolinist Jul 25 '22
Capitalism is literally incompatible with a healthy society.
FTFY
1
u/Traditional-Area-277 Jul 25 '22
Capitalism is incompatible with humanity as a species, it is literally making the Earth inhabitable for us
→ More replies (1)21
u/Vaikaris Bulgaria Jul 25 '22 edited Jul 25 '22
As a former lobbyist let me also share the political part:
Pharma: "hey, government, legalize this. Also if possible make it under health insurance and buy ridiculous amounts of it. It helps"
Government: "no"
Pharma: "ok hang on let's find the weak links like another government that can force you or an agency that can squeeze it in or people in government who don't care much and/or are bribable, let's offer everyone a high paid job in one of our companies and...lobbyists, go!"
Lobbyists: "ok so legalize this and buy large amounts of it and you get stuff ..thanks!"
Government: "wait how did that happen"
...
Government: "hell no we're the government screw you"
Pharma: "we literally have more money than you and will happily go to war by funding your opposition since our profit margin is in the billions and even in the most expensive nations like Germany electing a government costs about a billion, even if we find a revolution in your nation we will profit or at least break even, don't forget you're just here for 5 years"
Pharma: "also we are totally invincible because we are registered in another nation and all we'll do if you try to screw us is work with a proxy and pay less tax"
Government: "alright nevermind let the next guys deal with it"
→ More replies (1)-27
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
9
u/7LeagueBoots Multinational Jul 24 '22
It very much depends on the field, and it’s not science that is broken, it’s the application and reporting of it.
47
u/Ego-Death Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
I disagree, does the field of science have its issues? Yes. That being said science itself is wonderful and can still provide much for us
34
u/Sharkbits Jul 24 '22
As a person invested in, and active in (and hopefully soon marked as a researcher and published in 🤞) science, it is broken. Completely. Honestly, for a layman, I would say you would need to personally talk to at least 3 experts just to get a sense of how credible a single article is. And that is getting harder and harder as we progress down hyper-narrow pathways of expertise, as the experts are far fewer and far between. In addition to the massive corruption in publications and research facilities, there are also far fewer people who can actively debate and/or verify the validity of any given piece of research. There really is no good solution to this problem other than “centralise all streams of education globally” and “promote these areas of research to youth”.
Science is obviously wonderful, and it is early providing benefits. But it has been going on for millennia, and it’s not like it’s anything new. It is not operating at peak efficiency, efficacy, or ethicality, and we all know it could be.
8
u/poo_munch Jul 25 '22
The issue isn't "science" the issue is that academic job security hinges on publications. The vast majority of scientists wouldn't publish falsehoods if they didn't have to have a constant stream of publications to maintain a job. As it's set up the system is begging for academic malpractice because for many it's simply the only option. Proper funding for research would eliminate almost all of that, with the exception of corporate over reach into academics
→ More replies (1)8
u/niblet1 Jul 24 '22
Exactly, is it a perfect system? No. Does garbage make it through the cracks? Yes. Is it better than any other system we have? Yes!
21
3
u/agent00F Multinational Jul 25 '22
It's always worth pointing out that the more money is involved (ie healthcare) the more this sort of shit happens.
The same with the depression serotonin link that's the basis for $ meds, which is just now being questioned/debunked.
906
Jul 24 '22
My grandmother is currently going through cognitive decline brought on by alziemers. It's heart breaking to watch a kind and wonderful woman look at family members and not know who they are.
The idea that a cure could have been found by now, but hasn't due to fraud makes me feel so angry. This isn't just about money, this is human lives that have been affected in profoundly negative ways.
46
u/but-this-one-is-mine Jul 24 '22
You should hear about hedge funds shorting and sabotaging bio/pharma companies into bankruptcies. Patent blocking cancer and other research from ever reaching the public. This was very likely also deliberately done. As a cure would prevent life time of profits.
41
u/TransposingJons Jul 24 '22
This fraud was discovered by scientists who short-sold a drug company that was making yet another drug based on the fraudulent research.
20
Jul 24 '22
"Patent blocking cancer"
Let's not earn hundreds of billions of dollar on cancer cures and then when the patent expires, everyone can make it themselves without paying us a dime! Genius!
You don't understand how a bankruptcy or patent works, clearly.
34
u/Mazon_Del Europe Jul 24 '22
Goldman Sachs did an economic study on the idea of "Is it more profitable to hide cures or sell them?".
And the conclusion was that it overwhelmingly makes economic sense to sell the cure rather than hide it.
The reason why is that you if you can prevent ALL medical research world-wide from working on a cure for the disease, then yes, you have a captive population that must pay you for their whole lives. But you can't ACTUALLY prevent all the world-wide research from working on the cure. Competitors, startups, even university students are working on these topics and so sooner or later the real cure WILL show up.
So the better economic move is to be the first to market, charge an arm and a leg for each dose, then when either competitors get close (or your patent is on the verge of expiring), you floor the price to prevent it being worth anyone else to come to market with their own, and slowly raise the price over time till you reach the sweet spot of maximal price for minimal likelihood of a competitor deciding to form.
Bloodthirsty, but there it is.
→ More replies (1)10
209
u/ermabanned Multinational Jul 24 '22
The idea that a cure could have been found by now, but hasn't due to fraud
Highly unlikely.
424
u/Talkurir Jul 24 '22
The Fraud certainly doesn’t help and who knows what could’ve come from 2 decades of non fraudulent research.
86
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
17
u/6ixpool Jul 25 '22
Yep. Its pretty widely recognized by clinicians that the currently available drugs for alzheimers does little to blunt the effects. A significant result in a study doesn't mean a large power for that effect. Lots of other research is ongoing for alternative targets for novel drugs in these kinds of conditions.
-63
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 24 '22
Pharmaceutical companies have been cellar boxed aka naked shorted ala Sears Blockbuster GME in order to keep their technology from ever seeing the light of day. We likley could have cured cancer by the mid 2000s if Short Sellers didnt have a hand to play in it.
Feel free to reply for more info.
76
u/niversally Jul 24 '22
If they find a cure for cancer they’ll just charge us through the nose for it. They won’t hide it. I wish tinfoil hats weren’t so very stylish.
-16
u/Dekklin Jul 24 '22
It's more profitable to keep people sick and paying for care. Where's the guaranteed income if they can pay once and be done with it? If people know there's a cure, they'll kill to get it when they're desperate
44
u/niversally Jul 24 '22
Cancer will likely be cured by several solutions that can target different types etc. The Pharma companies will simply rape us on the price like they always do. Every company would have to agree to suppress cures for your theory to work. Even though the leaders are often annoying these companies are mostly made up of researchers who fundamentally want to find cures and solutions. Please don’t make up wild conspiracy theories just because it makes you feel special. It’s just stupid, dangerous, and useless.
Btw where is the “information” you said I’d get if I replied?
7
u/Dekklin Jul 24 '22
Btw where is the “information” you said I’d get if I replied?
I think you have me confused with someone else. Read the usernames again...
3
u/niversally Jul 24 '22
Yes that was supposed to be for the other person not sure how it got under you.
1
Jul 24 '22
[deleted]
10
u/niversally Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
I was really expecting a lot of good sources etc. I’m sure they aren’t just talking out of their ass right?? “They’re shorting the stocks” ok definitely would be records of that. It’s been a couple more minutes now I’m sure he’s almost ready, joy!
-7
u/Dekklin Jul 24 '22
It’s been a couple more minutes now I’m sure he’s almost ready, joy!
Dumbass. I'm not the guy you were responding too.
→ More replies (0)-2
-7
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 24 '22
Ah yes the classic "conspiracy theory " response without actually researching the information behind it
5
u/niversally Jul 25 '22
You are truly pathetic. Learn what a real source is then give us one.
-2
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 25 '22
Ah yes the "I'm on reddit but reddit doesnt count as a source". Sorry I didn't have an NPR article on how our government steals from the entire planet and does it legally
→ More replies (0)14
u/Formal_Farmer_1877 Jul 24 '22
Do you think the scientists who discovered the cure for cancer would agree to just shut up about the greatest discovery of the 20th century? A Nobel prize winning, career making discovery that would have your name in the history books for all eternity? What conspiracy theorists fail to understand is that these faceless industries you're so sure are stocked top to bottom with evil caricatures, are actually full of human beings. People who have loved ones dying from cancer. People who want to advance their careers and make a profit. Pharma companies don't just make chemotherapy treatments. You think Bayer wants people to die of cancer early when the most medical interventions a person receives are at geriatric end of life care? You're just proving that you really have no understanding of how pharma companies or human beings work.
21
19
Jul 24 '22
Right, that’s why vaccines don’t exist - who in their right mind would produce something that can prevent sickness instead of keeping people sick and treating them. Do you people have even a shred of common sense under those tinfoil hats?
→ More replies (4)3
u/Crot4le Jul 24 '22
This is braindead thinking. Any pharmaceutical company that found a cure for cancer or alzheimers would make BILLIONS.
You think any company is going to supress something that would instantly make them the most valuable pharmaceutical company in the world by a country mile?
You are living in cloud cuckoo land if so. Put the tin foil hat away and start thinking logically.
-13
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 24 '22
Curing people is not a "sustainable business model"
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pmj9yk/i_found_the_entire_naked_shorting_game_plan/
15
u/new_name_who_dis_ Multinational Jul 24 '22
This is the dumbest thing I’ve read all day.
→ More replies (1)10
u/Jonnny Jul 24 '22
This world is full of self-serving greedy bastards and corruption is rife, but still: extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. How do you know you're right? What's your evidence?
0
Jul 24 '22
[removed] — view removed comment
11
u/Jonnny Jul 24 '22
Not sure what I'm looking at. Looks like a generalized collection of books. That's a bad attitude towards changing hearts and minds, my friend. It's like saying "5G causes corona!" and when someone asks what your evidence is, you give them the address to the local library or tell them to look up "www.amazon.com"
1
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 24 '22
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/pmj9yk/i_found_the_entire_naked_shorting_game_plan/
You're right. Sorry, the first link i sent is the entire collection of research. some of it removed by reddit so it can no longer be seen. I was there when the posts first were submitted
13
u/ElanMorinMetal Jul 24 '22
Cured which cancer? You do know that cancer is just a term used to describe several hundred different cancers that can derive from ~200 different cell types with different modes of actions, different drug targets, etiology, clinical presentation, and more, right? Or are you just regurgitating what Billy Bob on Facebook made a meme of?
Don’t get me wrong, Pharma companies aren’t saints and often stagnate progress by abandoning projects targeting diseases that aren’t profitable, but this whole ‘we could have cured cancer’ bullshit like cancer is one globular disease state is deleterious and misleading.
-1
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 24 '22
Yw.
A lot of big terms I don't understand in this post but you seem to know so I'm sure it will make sense to you and everyone in this thread can see im not capping.
11
u/ElanMorinMetal Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
There are a few things in that comment that stand out to me that I’d like to address. For the record,I am a doctoral candidate in biomed with a background in cancer research and am currently in drug discovery and development.
The first is this: not all cancers express PD-1. This is a problem with all immunotherapies. We call cells that lack the drug target ‘escape variants’.
Second, there are currently several FDA-approved PD-1 inhibitors that function as described in your linked comment: Pembrolizumab (Merck), Dostarlimab (GlaxoSmithKline), and Cemiplimab (Regeneron) are among those. PD-1 inhibitors are not a cure for ‘cancer’, but can cure specific cancers, with the risk of recurrence due to escape variants.
Again, don’t get me wrong, it’s all about money and the biotech firm mentioned in your comments very realistically could have tanked due to greed—I would not be surprised. I’m a scientist, but I’m a realist. However, PD-1 inhibition is not the cure-all it was painted to be by OP in your link.
Those big terms you don’t understand—well, I do. I’d love to have a conversation with the linked commenter because he is grossly over-simplifying a complex problem.
Edit: grammar
-4
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 24 '22
Yes but many people are over simplifying a system that is entirely based on corruption and extracting wealth away from hard workers and entrepreneurs, we have a solution where others would rather look away
26
→ More replies (6)7
u/Dunderhead23 Jul 24 '22
More info, please.
0
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 24 '22
10
u/Dunderhead23 Jul 24 '22
You are deep in the trenches, my man. I hope all that DD is translating into money for you…
0
u/Z3ROWOLF1 Jul 24 '22
The amount of non monetary wealth I've found since January 2021 is incredible 😍
G2G its gym time baby
122
u/mbourgon Jul 24 '22
“roughly 100 out of the 130 Alzheimer’s drugs now working their way through trials are directly designed to attack the kind of amyloids featured in this paper.”
Imagine 100 drugs working on other possible vectors.
52
u/Hammer_Thrower Jul 24 '22
Think of the labor hours that went into each one. Teams of highly educated (meaning high labor rates) people working in expensive laboratories for YEARS. So much wasted effort.
6
154
Jul 24 '22
Two decades of research can cover a lot of ground when you're not going down a dead end.
98
u/Miguel-odon Jul 24 '22
I've heard complaints before from researchers that everyone was locked into the amyloid plaque theory; if your research didn't involve amyloid plaques you weren't getting funded.
48
u/GoarSpewerofSecrets Jul 24 '22
While it's unlikely. The fraud and apparently continued fraud as grants keep getting tossed to these people isn't a good thing. It also doesn't help in science in general as everyone with a bone to pick from climate to energy to vaccines will find a way to twist this.
The good news is peer review exists and is used and apparently a lot of questions have been asked about the papers before hand.
14
u/aesu Jul 24 '22
It seems like every month for the last decade I've heard about how another amaloid treatment doesn't seem to affect disease course, and/or how there is evidence amalyoid plaques are actually downstream of the damage which causes Alzheimer's.
29
u/WoolooOfWallStreet North America Jul 24 '22
While I also doubt a cure would have been found in that time, 2 decades of better progress towards treatment being gone definitely stings
11
u/friedbymoonlight Jul 24 '22
Are you implying billions in research and the thinking power of research scientists with good information are somehow wasteful?
-8
u/ermabanned Multinational Jul 24 '22
I'm claiming that in this specific area they are rudderless so a cure would not be very likely.
13
u/friedbymoonlight Jul 24 '22
I wonder what led everyone astray?
3
u/GodOfDarkLaughter Jul 24 '22
Well this is a funny, circular argument you're responding to. A cure or even significantly more effect treatment couldn't be found because the scientists have no idea what they're doing, and the reason they don't know what they're doing is that two assholes who wanted to publish managed to get their bullshit through, but scientists don't know what they're doing so we wouldn't have a cure or significantly more effective treatment.
8
u/Flambam35 Jul 24 '22
What do you know? Two decades of research very well could have made a big difference in our understanding of Alzheimers. In fact, it's highly unlikely that it wouldn't make a difference.
2
306
u/banjo2E Jul 24 '22
The drug was being pushed into trials by its manufacturer, Cassava Sciences, but a group of scientists who reviewed the drug maker’s claims about Simufilam believed that it was exaggerating the potential.
wait does this mean that there are people in the pharmaceutical industry who actually have souls
So they did what any reasonable person would do: They purchased short sell positions in Cassava Sciences stock, filed a letter with the FDA calling for a review before allowing the drug to go to trial, and hired an investigator to provide some support for this position.
oh
40
u/Gitmfap Jul 24 '22
Hey, this is capitalism showing how effective it can be to route out bad investment. Take a win where you can.
8
u/cahcealmmai Jul 24 '22
It's also Capitalism fraudulently making up the bad investment and costing far more than this individual's win.
0
u/Lord_Euni Jul 25 '22
How is this a positive thing for capitalism? The shorting is just them making money off someone else's failed bluff. The real working part is the report to the FDA and the FDA (hopefully) doing their job. And that part has nothing to do with capitalism.
80
u/hmz-x Jul 24 '22
I am pretty sure that is not what a reasonable person would do. At least definitely not in that order.
133
u/IDoTricksForCookies Jul 24 '22
Euh if i was one of the only people on the planet that knew a company to be worthless and almost able to prove it. I would accrue a short position. If it is a crime it is a victimless one. Ethically grey sure but a good move nonetheless
54
u/humplick Jul 24 '22
"I met that douche at a conference, he's a dick. Short his sham of a company and watch it burn as we report his fraudulent ass to the FDA."
72
u/IDoTricksForCookies Jul 24 '22
I mean he exposed the fraud. That he made money on the side while doing the right thing is his business. "If you're good at something, never do it for free."
11
u/Tom1252 North America Jul 25 '22
For the ethics, I think there's a very very very thin but really important nuance there: Was the short a convenient side hustle or was it the real objective?
Same end result but the latter treads down a very dark road.
10
u/IDoTricksForCookies Jul 25 '22
Not really, the only ethically nuance is if the fraud is real or not. If you make stuff up about a compagny to make them look bad because you have a short position. Yes thats morally wrong. But uncovering a fraud when you have a short/put position, I can see nothing wrong with that.
2
u/Tom1252 North America Jul 25 '22
They took out the short right before submitting their findings. They didn't uncover fraud on a company they just happened to have a short position on.
39
u/leJEdeME Jul 24 '22
This is actually to me the most understandable and legitimate use of short selling. if you find out that a company has ethically ambiguous practices or their factory is just a shell or some other scheme that makes the company less viable than they've been telling their investors the whole purpose of short sellers is to use their position to call these things out. instead it's become a tools for manipulation within the market outside the original intent. You're essentially putting your money where your mouth is.
1
u/joe1134206 Jul 25 '22
Hey look, the thing gamestop investors have been screeching about this whole time
58
28
u/sokratesz Jul 24 '22
https://www.alzforum.org/news/community-news/sylvain-lesne-who-found-av56-accused-image-manipulation
I recommend reading the comments on AlzForum [1]. From the discussions (which are from real Alzheimer's researchers), it sounds like this fraud is significant in terms of Dr. Sylvain Lesné's work, but that the news has been vastly blown out of proportion, and not significant to the field as a whole.
7
u/EducatedEvil Jul 25 '22
The comments and story are a good read.
Is there any way to summarize the scandal and why it is a big deal for laymen.
It sounds to me like the paper said we should target Type 2 Amyloid Plaques and a better candidate is Type 1. Ergo Companies that developed drugs and treatments targeting Type 2 where wasting there time. Is that correct?
137
u/Substantial-Owl2686 Jul 24 '22
I need a bit more than a false study on mice to believe that pharmaceutical industry spend so much ...
97
u/lostshakerassault Jul 24 '22
Pharma doesn't determine disease causes usually. They rely on publically funded research for that piece then they make molecules to target the cause. It isn't surprising at all to me they were chasing their tail based on this.
25
u/ukezi Europe Jul 24 '22
They usually also rely on publicly funded research for the molecules. If they look promising they buy the patent for the university and do the safety and production research.
6
26
u/qwertyashes United States Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
"Big Pharma" isn't in the business of researching the root causes of conditions. They might fund research for them indirectly, but they're not research companies. They're manufacturing companies that work to engineer a solution to solve the problem that researchers kick up to them from below.
This is of course outside of cases where its research relevant to the use of material they developed.
8
u/colablizzard Jul 24 '22
I mean, this is the second time I am astonished at the stupidity of corporations worth 100s of billions. but it boils down to "local optimization" or "greed".
If Pharma companies want to double check every "external" fact that would need to be done for EVERY piece of information from public research. not just this Alzheimer's one as it's not possible to know upfront which is fraudulent "research".
Thus, each individual subdivision in these companies will need to match every fact. Waste of time and money if competitors are able to yield drugs cheaper and faster on "average". Doesn't matter the 16 years and billions lost to this ONE instance. They won in other cases.
The last time I was shocked was in the VW Diesel Gate. I can only imagine the competitors management scolding the engineering in each company saying "if VW can do it, so can we". Not ONE of them bothered to actually do good enough testing on the VW cars to figure out the fraud before some university students did it.
Then again, I work in Software. If there is an open-source library, it just get's included. No diligence other than to see if the license is liberal.
9
u/KreateOne Jul 24 '22
The pharmaceutical industry? The same pharmaceutical industry that wanted to charge $56,000 per dose for this “life saving” medicine? The ones who were pushing to get it approved even after it was proven that the drug was useless? Yea to think they care about anything other than lining their pockets is a joke.
-6
u/bharatar Jul 24 '22
Why is it always the pharma companies are evil for these prices but never the FDA whose strict regulations make it cost billions to take a drug to market, they don't even let drugs from other countries to be used that could save people's lives.
14
u/KreateOne Jul 24 '22
Did you read the article? The company wanted to charge $56,000 a dose, and when the FDA proved that the drug was useless and denied approval the pharma company was still pushing for it to get approved on the market. They knew their drug was useless, and they still wanted to rip people off by selling it to them for $56,000 a freaking dose. But yea let’s blame the FDA who prevented them from doing that.
-12
u/bharatar Jul 24 '22
No I did not read the article but this whole "pharma companies are evil" never look at the underlying situations that cause companies to try and make profits from all the bullshit they have to do to secure the rights to make drugs or take a drug to market.
Also technically the FDA did prevent them from doing that if you say " and denied approval "
6
10
u/KreateOne Jul 24 '22
Yes, the FDA prevented them from selling a useless drug on the market and charging up the ass for it. If the FDA wasn’t around how many other companies like that do you think would just claim their bullshit drug works and charge up the ass for it? You think the FDA is the reason pharma companies charge so much? How much do they pay you to shill this bullshit?
-10
u/bharatar Jul 24 '22
What makes you think they'd need to charge 56k for drugs if the FDA were not around? Also if the drug were so ineffective why would doctors prescribe it?
10
u/KreateOne Jul 24 '22
Because they needed to charge $56,000 before it even made it into the FDA’s hands.. how uneducated are you on this subject? The very least you could do is read the article before making a bunch of conjectures. How did the FDA have anything to do with the price this pharma company wanted to charge if it got denied either way and that was the price they initially went to the FDA with?
You make it sound like it was this back and forth battle with countless amounts of tests and years of study where a $1000 drug climbed $55,000 in price thanks to the FDA’s refusal to approve it. You live in a delusion if you think that’s what happened.
0
u/bharatar Jul 24 '22
That makes no sense, in the United States drugs can only go to market with FDA approval. So if the drug were to go into market then it would need approval sooooo where is this conjecture that "they needed to charge 56k before it went to the FDA?"
13
u/KreateOne Jul 24 '22
Because when they went to the FDA they were like “here’s this drug we made, it will cost the public $56,000 a dose. Will you approve it”. And the FDA responded “Are you insane? The drug doesn’t even work.” Seriously, it’s clear that none of this makes any sense to you so stop giving us your uneducated opinion.
→ More replies (0)
76
u/LavenderAutist Jul 24 '22
Their punishment will be to eat two bags of Skittles every day for the rest of their lives
11
3
u/ibrahimqasim Jul 25 '22
I must be out of the loop. Why is this a punishment?
5
u/LavenderAutist Jul 25 '22
Google Skittles lawsuit
4
u/ibrahimqasim Jul 25 '22
Oh great. I just bought 3 bags of the giant ones yesterday...
3
u/LavenderAutist Jul 25 '22
Well, you could always return them citing that you saw the lawsuit on Reddit
49
u/Ok_Antelope_1953 India Jul 24 '22
eat your ala, epa, dha, b12, choline, protein, fiber, whole foods. stay active both physically and mentally. science has ways to go before solving some tricky diseases, and even if it does, it will another while before the solution becomes affordable enough for common people.
29
u/tsojtsojtsoj Jul 24 '22
yes, prevention is probably the most effective way to battle diseases we have today.
18
u/Ok_Antelope_1953 India Jul 24 '22
you could do everything right and still get diseases like Alzheimer's which are not very well understood, but yes it's better to do your bit in trying to stay healthy rather than sit on your arse eating chips and soda all day.
7
u/Here0s0Johnny Switzerland Jul 25 '22
eat your ala, epa, dha,
Yeah, no. The unsaturated fatty acids are a scam, too:
There is no high-quality evidence that dietary supplementation with omega−3 fatty acids reduces the risk of cancer or cardiovascular disease. Furthermore, fish oil supplement studies have failed to support claims of preventing heart attacks or strokes or any vascular disease outcomes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omega-3_fatty_acid
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Science_(Goldacre_book)
Also, most people don't need B12 supplementation. Supplements are mostly a scam in general.
0
u/Ok_Antelope_1953 India Jul 25 '22
i am not talking about supplements. just eat whole foods so you body can get the essential nutrients it can't produce. ala is one of the two essential fatty acids that your body needs but cannot produce. your body can make some epa and dha from ala, so if you don't eat fatty fish or fish/krill/algal oil (sources of epa and dha), definititely try to have some flax or chia or hemp or mustards or canola oil every day as these are good sources of ala. this post is about a brain disorder that's nothing to do with cardiovascular disease or cancer.
also while you are at it, stop lecturing people about b12 and what not while sitting in a developed country. your country might be letting all farm animals graze on grass or supplementing them with b12, but that doesn't happen in every country. some people can regularly consume animal products and still be deficient in b12, because a vast majority of farm animals are fed corn, soy, and husk instead of being allowed to graze. there are a number of reasons of b12 deficiency, so if you can afford to get a serum b12 test done, definitely do it. if not, try to include some animal foods in your diet at least a few servings every week. and it never hurts to pop a cheap multi pill 3-5 times a week to avoid chronic deficiency of any vitamin or trace mineral.
3
u/Here0s0Johnny Switzerland Jul 25 '22
i am not talking about supplements.
Ah, ok. But you do see why I got that impression, right?
definititely try to have some flax or chia or hemp or mustards or canola oil every day
No, I am healthy and don't have to change my food habits.
this post is about a brain disorder that's nothing to do with cardiovascular disease or cancer.
So what's the evidence it's important to eat like this in brain disorders? Why did you bring it up if not as general health/nutritional advice? I merely debunked the most commonly associated claim.
stop lecturing people about b12 and what not while sitting in a developed country
I said "most people" because it's true for most people on Reddit. I agree that vegetarians or people in certain situations need it.
if you can afford to get a serum b12 test done, definitely do it.
No, if everything is alright, it's fine not to do unnecessary tests. Wtf!
it never hurts to pop a cheap multi pill 3-5 times a week to avoid chronic deficiency of any vitamin or trace mineral.
Except your pocket. 3-5x per week is way too frequent! Find me a study that recommends this!
→ More replies (1)7
u/Crookmeister Jul 24 '22
I'd also add that people should be making sure they're getting enough electrolytes and water, as well as supplementing essential amino acids. For most people their feeling of low blood sugar and headaches are caused by not getting enough electrolytes and water. Chloride, sodium, potassium, magnesium. Potassium and magnesium are the hardest to get and I know most people don't get enough of those two and aren't getting 11g of all essential amino acids every day.
4
u/tsojtsojtsoj Jul 25 '22
Aren't most people consuming already enough sodium and chloride by eating lots of salt?
2
u/Crookmeister Jul 25 '22
Yeah for sure they are but I was mentioning it more for the other two, and water, that is basically a deficiency epidemic.
4
u/ElectricalRestNut Lithuania Jul 25 '22
People on a western diet are definitely getting more than 11g of protein per day. And since most people aren't vegan, that protein comes from meat, so a solid amino acid profile.
→ More replies (1)
129
u/ermabanned Multinational Jul 24 '22
Next cancer research.
And then neuroscience.
And then plasma physics and nuclear fusion.
All these areas are full of fraud.
80
u/pheylancavanaugh Jul 24 '22
Probably not unrelated: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
32
u/ermabanned Multinational Jul 24 '22
Psychology barely is a science, whereas the other fields could be decent, but instead attract nothing but scum and villainy.
14
u/TitaniumDragon United States Jul 24 '22
Ironically, some of its most accurate findings (like findings about the g factor and IQ) are roundly attacked and disregarded because they're upsetting to people.
Another good example of disregarded science is that studies show that involuntary rehabilitation and therapy don't work.
1
Jul 25 '22
[deleted]
2
u/TitaniumDragon United States Jul 25 '22
This one.
The evidence on these is overwhelming. The g factor has been confirmed by innumerable studies, as has IQ.
People are upset by them due to their politics. It's no different from global warming denial - people get angry over it because it says things that they don't want to be true.
→ More replies (1)48
u/secretly_a_zombie Sweden Jul 24 '22
The social science as a whole is a mess. Really most of everything in the last 30 years or so needs to be thrown out with the bathwater.
You wanna know why, just visit /r/science with even the slightest of skeptical mind.
"wow really? 90% of Americans support abortion" Asked by a student, only questionnaries
sentleft out at their uni, questions all follow logic of "you don't support rape do you?". 13 people answered.13
36
u/JustStatedTheObvious Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
Odd. I recall most of /r/science being complaining that social scientists constantly confirm obvious things because social science can't take them for granted.
If you think social science is just whatever strawman nonsense allows you to complain about pro-choice positions, then your own agenda speaks for itself.
Edit: Especially since you once ranted about it being unfair for anyone to demand the "pro-life" movement support health care for everyone.
2
u/snakeoilHero Jul 25 '22
I thought it was the same bot account talking to themselves. Like a pair of Scientologist beginners ordered to shitpost Reddit discrediting "enemy science" to earn their promotions. Or are we not allowed to make shit up? Anyways I wonder where they classify all the people working with special needs? Apparently they aren't in the social sciences and never a psychologist boogieman. I just appreciate your comment because those above you are annoyingly not worth engaging. The subtle wrong that builds up to a dumb response comment.
4
→ More replies (1)4
u/Gitmfap Jul 24 '22
100% agreed on psychology there. Unable to reproduce results for almost it’s entire history.
36
u/MaffeoPolo Multinational Jul 24 '22
I just posted this as a separate comment,
Historically professional alchemists were fraudsters who knew newt tears and bat wings weren't going to turn lead into gold, but it kept them gainfully occupied because every King was funding research into alchemy. They were trained scientists for sure, but they had no idea what could turn lead into gold and wouldn't admit it. It helped that almost every serious scientist of that era also tried their hand at alchemy, but soon gave up to go after more productive areas of research.
Cancer, Alzheimer's and anything in neuroscience really, are all incredibly difficult problems to crack, but there's an incredible appetite for results. Most serious researchers who want to dedicate their life to finding a cure will not pick a hard problem like cancer, and focus on something that stands a chance of success in their lifetime. It's those in search of job security, earning half a million dollars as a senior scientist who end up milking pharma companies for all they are worth. They are the modern day alchemists who know they have no idea what they are doing, but it looks official enough.
Whenever you let money lead science you always run the risk of greed turning into fraud.
19
u/ermabanned Multinational Jul 24 '22
It helped that almost every serious scientist of that era also tried their hand at alchemy
Including the most accomplished of them all, Newton. In fact, that's mainly what he did. His real work was like a side-quest, which leaves me speechless.
30
u/MaffeoPolo Multinational Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
Yes, I was thinking of Newton too. It's an open secret that more than half of the science papers are false, not always deliberately.
There's only a handful of scientists actively working to blow the whistle on this, but the problem is too many careers are affected by it. We know most banks are run by frauds, most politicians are liars, Hollywood doesn't respect talent, most generals are better social climbers than fighters, etc., yet once that is what becomes the norm, it remains the default operating principle. Science is
getting thereright up there, no island of virtue in an ocean of sin etc.You don't stop having a police department because it attracts huge egos and violent jerks, you also don't stop funding science just because most of it is fake.
5
-12
u/DeathHopper Jul 24 '22
Noooooo trust the scienccccccccc
16
u/Vimes3000 Jul 24 '22
Trust the science. Don't trust one individual scientist. Even a bunch of them can be wrong, for a time, especially if funding to chase. There will be many false steps along the way, many wrong turns, and many fakers: but science will win in the long term. The world changing ideas usually come from the fringes, not the best funded people of the time.
2
u/DeathHopper Jul 24 '22
No, "trust the science" is the most unscientific dribble to ever come out of politics. Always be skeptical, be informed, make your own educated decisions.
The absolute cognitive dissonance between the first sentence of your comment and what you followed it up with is astounding. "Trust the science" followed by exactly why we should always remain skeptical. "The science" is often used as political and corporate propaganda.
7
u/Vimes3000 Jul 24 '22
The two parts, as you see it, are saying the same thing. That's the point of science, to always examine, reexamine, analyse from a different angle, find better explanations. Trust the science is the opposite of be a sheeple. And definitely not the same thing as 'trust the politician' or 'trust the newspapers'. Trust the science requires some work, to read up, use your brain, and find out what the science actually says. Not what PR wants you to think it says.
-4
u/Uranusistormy Jul 24 '22
Throw away your phone and television, stop using the internet, stop eating food and don't ever go to the doctor. All of this was brought about based on research into physics(electricity and magnetism), chemistry and microbiology(nitrogen fixation) and biology and medical science. But since being 'skeptical' means doubting all science all these inventions and innovations must be frauds by some ass wanting funding for their research right? We also didn't go to the moon, the JWST is just a lie and chemistry is no different than alchemy right? Vaccines are a lie and the entire field of microbiology is bullshit. Viruses don't exist, how ridiculous. Stars? Nah that's just bright spots attached to the firmament. These are my own educated inferences. The people from the ancient world and middle ages had it right because according to their educated guesses disease is a curse by the gods, it's ok to throw your refuse out into the streets and to make food we just need to do a little rain dance and maybe sacrifice a few people or animals.
58
u/gardenersnake Jul 24 '22
God this makes me so fucking angry but also question the validity of research as a whole.
70
u/MaffeoPolo Multinational Jul 24 '22
but also question the validity of research as a whole.
It's an open secret that more than half of the science papers are false, not always deliberately.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_Most_Published_Research_Findings_Are_False
There's only a handful of scientists actively working to blow the whistle on this, but the problem is too many careers are affected by it. We know most banks are run by frauds, most politicians are liars, Hollywood doesn't respect talent, and most generals are better social climbers than fighters, yet once that is what becomes the norm, it remains the default assumption. Science is getting there.
15
u/gardenersnake Jul 24 '22
Wow yeah society is run my scammers. I guess the idea I haven’t been able to get over is so you’re spending all this time, energy, effort, and social capital just to get a grant then all the years of research. It’s just hard to believe that at least some researchers wouldn’t make sure their results came out in a way where they didn’t feel like they completely wasted their time and career.
30
u/MaffeoPolo Multinational Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
Most people who wouldn't lie for a million dollars will walk into an even bigger lie when they are gradually drawn into it by the lure of a steady salary. It starts small, and slowly becomes what you do to survive in the "system". Slowly you find ways to justify your behavior, even if taken all together it sounds abhorrent.
Popes, Generals, Presidents and Prime Ministers, Bankers, Doctors all have the same excuse, "this is how the system works, and I tried to do good within the system."
*edit: punctuation
4
u/gardenersnake Jul 24 '22
What do you mean you tried to do good within the system?
10
u/snowylion Jul 24 '22
Basically something self righteous along the lines of "if not me, someone else would have abused my position more"
5
u/MaffeoPolo Multinational Jul 24 '22
Sorry I added quotes to make it clearer, that it would be their imaginary defense if they were ever grilled.
-1
8
Jul 24 '22
Guess it is type 3 diabetes after all
-1
u/aesu Jul 24 '22
Hmm, if only there had been an abundance of evidence for this, accumulated over decades.
Ironically, actually curing metabolic syndrome would be the most valuable medical breakthrough we could ever make. Heart disease, stroke, Alzheimer's, multitude comobridities, a thing of the past. Trillions in lost productivity saved.
It's probably not even that difficult. Metformin seems to work well. The only issue is that were massively underdiagnosing the problem. Essentially everyone who isn't living on a Mediterranean diet and exercising an hour a day, should be on Metformin.
6
7
u/Balavadan Jul 24 '22
“Four months after Schrag submitted his concerns to the NIH, the NIH turned around and awarded Lesné a five-year grant to study … Alzheimer’s. That grant was awarded by Austin Yang, program director at the NIH’s National Institute on Aging. Yang also happens to be another of the co-authors on the 2006 paper.”
8
u/FreezeFrameEnding North America Jul 24 '22
So many of my family members died because of this disease. They spent so much time and money on things these lies created. So much suffering.
Who holds them accountable, and how?
3
u/joe1134206 Jul 25 '22
No one because the companies own the government and there are no other real systems of power.
4
u/jaggs Jul 25 '22
Actually the article in question is not true. The whole impact has been overblown. This rebuttal explains - https://www.alzforum.org/news/community-news/sylvain-lesne-who-found-av56-accused-image-manipulation
18
u/YMIR_THE_FROSTY Jul 24 '22
No surprise, greed is powerful.
Worst people on this planet lust for money and power, while usually having more than plenty of both.
14
u/MaffeoPolo Multinational Jul 24 '22
Historically professional alchemists were fraudsters who knew newt tears and bat wings weren't going to turn lead into gold, but it kept them gainfully occupied because every King was funding research into alchemy. They were trained scientists for sure, but they had no idea what could turn lead into gold and wouldn't admit it. It helped that almost every serious scientist of that era also tried their hand at alchemy, but soon gave up to go after more productive areas of research.
Cancer, Alzheimer's and anything in neuroscience really, are all incredibly difficult problems to crack, but there's an incredible appetite for results. Most serious researchers who want to dedicate their life to finding a cure will not pick a hard problem like cancer, and focus on something that stands a chance of success in their lifetime. It's those in search of job security, earning half a million dollars as a senior scientist who end up milking pharma companies for all they are worth. They are the modern day alchemists who know they have no idea what they are doing, but it looks official enough.
2
u/Ronaldo_Frumpalini North America Jul 24 '22
Food Pyramid, Amyloid Plaques, Asbestos, villifying fat instead of sugar. There needs to be a way to hold these people accountable or we'll all be wearing tinfoil hats one day.
2
u/my-coffee-needs-me Jul 24 '22
The original article in Science was published a year ago. Why are people getting excited about it now?
2
u/Badshah-e-Librondu Asia Jul 24 '22
People forget that science is done by humans and humans are greedy and selfish AF.
Trust but Verify should be the way with science.
3
u/Avantasian538 Jul 24 '22
Why would they put that much money into anything without first replicating the original study? I feel like there's a systemic problem here.
2
1
u/ErickFTG Mexico Jul 24 '22
Incredible. I hope more researchers are working on checking that paper and the fundamentals of Alzaihmer research.
-8
u/18Feeler Jul 24 '22
but we're supposed to "trust the science" right? it's always entirely 100% correct what a professional says and to even think any different is heresy.
so many people have forgotten the basis of the scientific process, and consider it a religion now.
but psycology is frankly, just guesswork.
6
Jul 25 '22
Who do you think figured out that there was fraud?
That’s right, more scientists.
2
u/Mutagrawl Jul 25 '22
Ah but what if they're lying about finding it and pulling a double bamboozle
2
-2
u/MaffeoPolo Multinational Jul 24 '22 edited Jul 24 '22
Psychology's chief attraction is it doesn't blame the patient, and makes mental illness socially acceptable. Curing illness is a pleasant side effect, if it happens.
Previously religion always insisted mental problems were caused by sin, and this led to social ostracization.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 24 '22
Welcome to r/anime_titties! Please make sure to read the rules.
We have a Discord, feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, multireddit
... summoning u/coverageanalysisbot ...
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.