Need help with a Nature article

[mr friendly guy]

So browsing through another board someone posted this article.

Cancer industry total fraud exposed: Nearly all 'scientific' studies fail to be replicated

(NaturalNews) The vast majority of so-called scientific studies focused on cancer research are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent, suggests a new review published in the journal Nature. A shocking 88 percent of 53 "landmark" studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means that their conclusions are patently false.

Begley says he cannot publish the names of the studies whose findings are false. But since it is now apparent that the vast majority of them are invalid, it only follows that the vast majority of modern approaches to cancer treatment are also invalid.

One can read the full article. However my bullshit detector went off at a few points.

1. The website's name natural news. Coupled with the fact this article seems replicated in various other herbal / natural websites and not even at first glance in tabloid press. I trust we don't need to go into the naturalistic fallacy.

2. Me - I have evidence your claim is bullshit

You - ok, show it.

Me - I can't. Its a secret.

Yeah, and the funny thing is, no one bats an eye about that line in the article.

So naturally I am interested professionally and personally that 88% of "landmark" cancer studies are bullshit. So whats a guy to do? Follow the source. Now granted they don't actually say which issue of Nature its in, but given this article was published in April of this year, presumably if it appeared in the Nature journal, it would only be in the most recent ones.

So any body say with university access, could you either post the article here, or PM me and I will give you an email address to send it. Preferably in PDF format. I can access medical journals from work, but I doubt I can access general scientific journals. Any help would be appreciated. Maybe I might even give those guys a work out.

[D.Turtle]

Here is the link to the comment, which came out in the March 28 edition of Nature. AFAIK, comments in Nature are not peer reviewed.

If you can't access it there, just write me a PM.

[mr friendly guy]

Now that I read it, (thanks to D. Turtle) I can comment on the article from natural news snigger.

Isn't it funny how a comment on "how science can do better research" is interpreted by critics as "science is fraudulent and SUXS"

(NaturalNews) The vast majority of so-called scientific studies focused on cancer research are inaccurate and potentially fraudulent, suggests a new review published in the journal Nature.

1. Its a comment not a review article, which means Nature news doesn't know what the difference is. How do I know its a comment and not a review article. Why its listed under the heading Comment.

2. It does not suggest potentially fraudulent in the comment. Science which looks good in the lab but doesn't work in clinical trials is not fraudulent. But hey, lets use emotive language.

In fact lets quote the author Begley himself on this issue.

These investigators were all competent, well-meaning scientists who truly wanted to make advances in cancer research.

Yep, sounds like he is accusing them of fraud here.

A shocking 88 percent of 53 "landmark" studies on cancer that have been published in reputable journals over the years cannot be reproduced, according to the review, which means that their conclusions are patently false.

Long story short, the article is talking about what looks good in the lab, does not necessarily translate well in clinical trials. This is a given to anyone with half a brain. Thats why we have to have clinical trials in the first place. What they are concerned about is that unlike other avenues of medical research, promising results in pre clinical work for cancer have a low success rate in clinical trials. They give some reasons for this, eg failure to use more than one cell line (not all cancers of the same type have the same cell line) etc.

C. Glenn Begley, a former head of global cancer research at drug giant Amgen and author of the review, was unable to replicate the findings of 47 of the 53 studies he examined. It appears as though researchers are simply fabricating findings that will garner attention and headlines rather than publishing what they actually discover, which helps them to maintain a steady stream of grant funding but deceives the public

Too bad Begley himself does not accuse the researchers of fabricating findings, and states the reasons why some lab work doesn't translate to clinical success.

"These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development," said Begley about the false studies. "But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value."

If Begley said it, he certainly didn't say that in his comment. Just use Adobe and search for that passage in the PDF file, and its not there. Certainly the last line "As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value" is a totally different tone to the one Begley uses in this comment about limitations of cancer research in the pre clinical phase. Especially when the article said this

These results, although disturbing, do not mean that the entire system is flawed. There are many examples of outstanding research that has been rapidly and reliably translated into clinical benefit. In 2011, several new cancer drugs were approved, built on robust preclinical data.

The people accusing others of lying themselves resort to lying. Say it ain't so brother.

Begley says he cannot publish the names of the studies whose findings are false. But since it is now apparent that the vast majority of them are invalid, it only follows that the vast majority of modern approaches to cancer treatment are also invalid.

No, it implies that the majority of cancer research in the pre clinical trial phase needs to be improved. Cancer treatment is in the post clinic trial phase. Remember, even if it looks good in a lab, it needs to be tested in the real world before we can market it. The article is commenting on why good results in pre clinical lab work doesn't translate into good results in clinical trials. The fact Natural news doesn't know the difference tells me quite a lot about them. But it gets better. Remember this comment from your precious author.

These results, although disturbing, do not mean that the entire system is flawed. There are many examples of outstanding research that has been rapidly and reliably translated into clinical benefit. In 2011, several new cancer drugs were approved, built on robust preclinical data.

Naturally Natural News (Nice alliteration) doesn't quote this comment. It wouldn't fit with the organisation's avowed goal to "empower individuals to make positive changes in their health." And that quote in "" is actually what they said.

Back in 2009, researchers from the University of Michigan's Comprehensive Cancer Center also published an analysis that revealed many popular cancer studies to be false. As can be expected, one of the primary causes of false results was determined to be conflicts of interest that tended to favor "findings" that worked out best for drug companies rather than for the people

This is separate from the article, so its harder for me to comment. However its hard to spin a conflict of interest (hint the word conflict doesn't even appear in the article) from Begley's comment when its actually in Big Pharma's interest to improve the pre clinical lab work. Why is it in their interest? So they don't waste money on a clinical trial which doesn't work.

God these guys are fucking retards.


Does anyone know if it violates copyright to post in on a scrib account? I am tempted to do that and then post this rebuttal on the other message board.

Once again thanks to D. Turtle.

[mr friendly guy]

These are the studies the pharmaceutical industry relies on to identify new targets for drug development," said Begley about the false studies. "But if you're going to place a $1 million or $2 million or $5 million bet on an observation, you need to be sure it's true. As we tried to reproduce these papers we became convinced you can't take anything at face value."

To further elaborate, he says "The scientific community assumes that the claims in a preclinical study can be taken at face value", and then he says its not always the case because of x, y, z. Naturally Natural News says the total opposite to that with the statement " we can't take anything at face value." This is not even an out of context quote from Natural News. Its outright lying.