Comments (130)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
r_u_srs_srsly 91 points ago

The authors of the paper didn't even get to see the raw data from this fake company

They're just now preparing an NDA for the authors to check out the data

The "authors" sent a paper for publication they didn't verify. No one at the Lancet thought to ask. No one in the review process bothered to ask such a simple question

Chicago-based Surgisphere has not publicly released the data underlying the studies, but today Desai told Science through a spokesperson that he was “arranging a nondisclosure agreement that will provide the authors of the NEJM paper with the data access requested by NEJM.”

(from the sciencemag copy: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling)

SoldanoSlo 57 points ago

I was taught that science (Science!) depended on the free flow of information (e.g. data) and that should be available for everyone. But when even the authors in elite journals don't look at the data, it shows we are very far from that ideal.

Landcruzer94 9 points ago

In fact, they were blinded with it

peltast 2 points ago

I'd say double-blinded.

GrandInquisitor 9 points ago

yeah that's a bit strange to me.

Brez 27 points ago

People have this ideal image of peer review where the experiment is meticulously recreated and the data verified in order to be published in a journal, in reality peer review is a professor checking that their methodology looks good enough between weeder class lectures. If you want to recreate the experiment that comes after it is published, most aren't, and there is actually a crisis of failing to reproduce experiments. Published social "science" studies might as well be op ed. And that's what this is disguised as a clinical trial.

BoughtByBloomberg 8 points ago

Peer review is essentially a process of bribery for the majority of the reviewers. A buddy of theirs needs some more citations for their paper so you cite them. Some people actually go in and really look at the data but mostly it's just rewriting a sentence 20 times so it says exactly the same thing but with different words.

magabigleague2 7 points ago (edited)

I've read enough papers in my undergrad days to know that you can't recreate shit from most of the crap that is published. Documentation in the methodologies sections are so half assed that you wouldn't know how they did what. It is guaranteed that everyone attempting to recreate an experiment would have wildly different approaches.

The only things you can really hope to glean from these types of scientific papers is their data and conclusions.

iaintgottimetobleed 1 point ago

Peer review is BS. The "reviewers" are either pals of the publishers of the paper, or their employees, or their supervisors, or someone who would like some positive "peer review" for their own papers in return for the favor.

iaintgottimetobleed 2 points ago

Scientists have no obligation to look at the data or take it seriously. Scientists don't have skin in the game. They are totally immune to the consequences of their work. If thousands die because a scientist made an error in his research, nothing will happen to the scientist. At most, he'll have to publish a retraction, say "errors were made", say that this is how science progresses, maybe throw a joke in between. He might even end with an award. Compare with the engineer. If the plane crashes or the bridge collapses, the engineer will be immediately arrested, charged with homicide, sued out of the gains from his life's work, humiliated, and prevented from working as an engineer again.

Corse46 19 points ago

Reminds me of Rosenstein signing the FISA renewal

saveMySpeech 7 points ago

And this company creating this fake study data is the FusionGPS


And some rando outfit called Crowdstrike inspecting Hillary’s server.

wong 12 points ago

Damn, literally getting away with murder.

deleted 1 point ago
AnEndgamePawn 4 points ago

And now there's this:


Gee, I wonder if either of these science journals will publish this study (lol)

PatrickSebast 2 points ago

I've been amused be leading universities posting data and reports that contradict the media narrative in multiple cases and finding that all those reports get more or less pushed aside.

ARfreedom 1 point ago

An NDA? Funny, I thought science was about sharing information so that it could be repeatedly tested and verified or rejected based on cold hard facts and numbers; not something hidden in the dark for only the elites to know. But then again I graduated long before common core took over.

Paek 2 points ago

It's because they wanted the data to be true and that is really disturbing

HocusLocus 1 point ago (edited)

Desai told Science through a spokesperson that he was “arranging a nondisclosure agreement that will provide the authors of the NEJM paper with the data access requested by NEJM.

THREE steps removed from the public then,

  • Surgisphere
  • Authors of their own (goshdarned) paper <-- we are here
  • Publisher of the paper (NEJM)
  • Any who request it (without signing an NDA)
  • served on a website in public view, patient anonymized of course

What dull skuggery is this.