• Number Of Published Cancer Studies That Can't Be Reproduced Is Shockingly High
    19 replies, posted
[quote]In an anonymous survey taken by scientists at a prestigious cancer center, more than half of the respondents said they'd failed to reproduce published scientific findings at least one time.[/quote] [url]http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/half-cancer-scientists-have-been-unable-reproduce-studies-survey-finds[/url]
Oh my
I wonder if this survey could reproduce the same results if they were to perform it again.
cigarettes everywhere are like 'i'm sorry this has never happened'
Keyword in this article is "at least one time."
Less cancer for everyone!
So this is why all those supposed cancer cures that have been found seem to vanish the next day? :v:
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;40732372]So this is why all those supposed cancer cures that have been found seem to vanish the next day? :v:[/QUOTE] What cures?
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;40732372]So this is why all those supposed cancer cures that have been found seem to vanish the next day? :v:[/QUOTE] No, it's because they have to go through years and years of testing after their discovery to make sure they do what they're theorized to and that they're relatively safe for the public at large
But doesn't doing studies on cancer cause cancer
[QUOTE=DeanWinchester;40732372]So this is why all those supposed cancer cures that have been found seem to vanish the next day? :v:[/QUOTE] Yeah, seems like. An exciting study comes out that makes it seem like cancer is going to be cured tomorrow, then it turns out nobody else can reproduce any of their results, and it gets forgotten. Cancer research is like the perfect shitstorm of public health crisis, Big Pharma moneygrubbing, misinformation, and corruption of real science. Everyone wants to capitalize on cancer treatment dollars, and there is virtually no real accountability for what is verified to work, and what is crap. And on the prevention side, it is a complete and total crapshoot as to what actually causes cancer. It's like obesity, where over the past years popular wisdom has lurched wildly from "Carbs are bad!" to "carbs are good, fats are bad" to "Fats are good, sugars are bad!" and really nobody has a fucking clue what to do, but they all want to sell you something.
actually it has more to do with the fact that cancer is a condition thats extremely personal to each patient. we can create treatment for cancer for one specific individual, this is what most cancer research is, collecting information about one person and using it to create a treatment individual to that one person in the hopes of either causing remission or manageability. the trouble comes in generalising this treatment for multiple people because its never as effective. thats why a lot of cancer treatment is extremely general, whether its cytotoxic medication which basically kills rapid dividing cells (causing hair loss for example) or radiation. the new thing in cancer treatment atm is specific anticancer medication which simply targets one protein or DNA strain expressed by a specific type of cancerous cell, but that immediately multiplies both the cost and the complexity of the treatment, which puts it out of reach for most people. [quote]And on the prevention side, it is a complete and total crapshoot as to what actually causes cancer. It's like obesity[/quote] no its absolutely nothing like that we know what causes obesity and we know what causes cancer. the problem is that obesity is a generic condition, cancer isnt to say someone has cancer means anything from simple basal-cell carcinoma which is never incredibly dangerous and easy to treat; to colorectal cancer which is difficult to treat and kills more than 50% of its victims each individual cancer can have a plethora of different factors including lifestyle, genetics, chemical exposure, age etc. so we can't specifically say something causes it and we can't specifically treat one individual factor because its likely a combination of everything obesity however is easily isolated to its root cause and treatable. the idea that cancer is one disease is a huge misnomer, its a classification of a huge group of conditions and diseases, all requiring different types of medical attention, study, and research
uggh scientists are so dumb dont they know that u are born with the cancer and no amount of not smoking will stop u from getting it??
[QUOTE=thisispain;40738881]actually it has more to do with the fact that cancer is a condition thats extremely personal to each patient. we can create treatment for cancer for one specific individual, this is what most cancer research is, collecting information about one person and using it to create a treatment individual to that one person in the hopes of either causing remission or manageability. the trouble comes in generalising this treatment for multiple people because its never as effective. thats why a lot of cancer treatment is extremely general, whether its cytotoxic medication which basically kills rapid dividing cells (causing hair loss for example) or radiation. the new thing in cancer treatment atm is specific anticancer medication which simply targets one protein or DNA strain expressed by a specific type of cancerous cell, but that immediately multiplies both the cost and the complexity of the treatment, which puts it out of reach for most people. no its absolutely nothing like that we know what causes obesity and we know what causes cancer. the problem is that obesity is a generic condition, cancer isnt to say someone has cancer means anything from simple basal-cell carcinoma which is never incredibly dangerous and easy to treat; to colorectal cancer which is difficult to treat and kills more than 50% of its victims each individual cancer can have a plethora of different factors including lifestyle, genetics, chemical exposure, age etc. so we can't specifically say something causes it and we can't specifically treat one individual factor because its likely a combination of everything obesity however is easily isolated to its root cause and treatable. the idea that cancer is one disease is a huge misnomer, its a classification of a huge group of conditions and diseases, all requiring different types of medical attention, study, and research[/QUOTE] Reminds me of this comic: [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/JSQUaihGxpzucsU_LZrZ_7qFzDQ.gif[/IMG]
[QUOTE=heuristicGman;40738895]uggh scientists are so dumb dont they know that u are born with the cancer and no amount of not smoking will stop u from getting it??[/QUOTE] Please, tell me about how my research group has everything all wrong.
Not surprised. Take everything you read in a paper with a grain of salt. I've done things in the lab where the same methodology has produced different results every time. And that's in a chemistry lab; I can't imagine how variable results for biological studies are.
Cancer is completely individual, but the more we know, the better we can treat it. The survival rate for all types of cancer put together have doubled since the 1970's. Thanks to that fact my mom survived. We're slowly getting there.
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;40738907]Reminds me of this comic: [IMG]http://filesmelt.com/dl/JSQUaihGxpzucsU_LZrZ_7qFzDQ.gif[/IMG][/QUOTE] The art style somehow reminds me of Calvin & Hobbes. Telling, though.
Honestly pretty sure there is a lot of bullshit in the scientific community, I mean fraudulent scientific papers are discovered all the time, think of all the fraudulent papers that aren't discovered. This might not be just the scientists' fault though, as scientists who find things that support the popular opinion or are easy to sensationalize in the news get more coverage and therefore more money, and thus encouraging scientists to ignore faults in their own research for money.
[QUOTE=heuristicGman;40738895]uggh scientists are so dumb dont they know that u are born with the cancer and no amount of not smoking will stop u from getting it??[/QUOTE] I really hope this is just a REAAAAALLY stupid joke
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.