I've had occasion to review around 200 peer-reviewed articles & watch conf presentation videos in the past four months, and can truly say that my "rhetoric of science" graduate coursework & years pulling together initiatives in research development did my prepare me for the perfidy of the 21st century …
I've had occasion to review around 200 peer-reviewed articles & watch conf presentation videos in the past four months, and can truly say that my "rhetoric of science" graduate coursework & years pulling together initiatives in research development did my prepare me for the perfidy of the 21st century medical/corporate pharma state. When does publishing a manuscript go from humbling yourself to revisions to reflect consensus, or grumbling about how this or that editor makes a routine change to flatter her doctoral chair, to study design that regularly silences the very patients the funded "research" is purported to help?
Well, as just one example, I found dozens of sexist comments & assumptions about women in breast cancer journals & presentations w/r/t endocrine therapy that were manifestly not apparent when prostate cancer patients are advised to a similar therapy, though typically w/ only moderate side effects.
But once a Pharma-company has bought a predetermined conclusion through institutional coupling w/ tenure-seeking research clinicians at grant-seeking institutions, the citation to that conclusion gains traction thru research metrics & in popular, uncritical mainstream press (also reading from press releases). We've seen shaky citations flow promote manifest falsehoods about transgender ideology, attempt to undercut evidence supporting the emerging metabolic paradigm, claim a national epidemic of prescription opioid or benzo addiction then only 8% of chronic patients at most become addicted and even then the tradeoffs are sometimes worth it, or undercut a neutral Cochrane review that didn't accuse mask-refusers of genocide. But psychologically, even readers/believers/clinicians who didn't have a stake in these issues will, by repeating weak or false conclusions, will develop a bias toward defending them, since to admit disseminating incorrect & even politically motivated guidance requires the resolution of a lot of cognitive dissonance.
I see Confounders, all the way down.
I've had occasion to review around 200 peer-reviewed articles & watch conf presentation videos in the past four months, and can truly say that my "rhetoric of science" graduate coursework & years pulling together initiatives in research development did my prepare me for the perfidy of the 21st century medical/corporate pharma state. When does publishing a manuscript go from humbling yourself to revisions to reflect consensus, or grumbling about how this or that editor makes a routine change to flatter her doctoral chair, to study design that regularly silences the very patients the funded "research" is purported to help?
Well, as just one example, I found dozens of sexist comments & assumptions about women in breast cancer journals & presentations w/r/t endocrine therapy that were manifestly not apparent when prostate cancer patients are advised to a similar therapy, though typically w/ only moderate side effects.
But once a Pharma-company has bought a predetermined conclusion through institutional coupling w/ tenure-seeking research clinicians at grant-seeking institutions, the citation to that conclusion gains traction thru research metrics & in popular, uncritical mainstream press (also reading from press releases). We've seen shaky citations flow promote manifest falsehoods about transgender ideology, attempt to undercut evidence supporting the emerging metabolic paradigm, claim a national epidemic of prescription opioid or benzo addiction then only 8% of chronic patients at most become addicted and even then the tradeoffs are sometimes worth it, or undercut a neutral Cochrane review that didn't accuse mask-refusers of genocide. But psychologically, even readers/believers/clinicians who didn't have a stake in these issues will, by repeating weak or false conclusions, will develop a bias toward defending them, since to admit disseminating incorrect & even politically motivated guidance requires the resolution of a lot of cognitive dissonance.