How common is the bogus medical/health research study?

How common is the bogus medical/health research study?

Question by anti-zionist: How common is the bogus medical/health research study?
At an Asian American church I visited the other day, a group of people from UCLA were there to conduct study to “learn more about current knowledge and beliefs related to behaviors that may decrease risk of developing cancer” and “about how providing education… affects …knowledge and behavior.” I would not have questioned the legitimacy of this so-called “research” study if there were no available information on knowledge and beliefs concerning cancer among Asian Americans. However, there have been numerous studies on the same subject. As for the benefit of intervention education, few people will raise doubt. In spite of its dubious, illogical, and anti-intellectual nature, this “research” study has been approved by UCLA and currently funded by the NIH and the NCI all at public expense. Squandering our tax money only to reiterate the findings of previous studies in different wording I believe reflects a serious flaw in the existing system. I remember reading another bogus study on the adverse physical effect of smoking almost half a century after such notion was established as medical consensus. Just how common is the bogus research study in America?

Best answer:

Answer by hjlk
its all over the place between the people who trusted to handle our money and the “research groups” that are chosen to take part in this conspiracy i had a very similar question like yours on my ask page as well but it was mysteriously removed for no reason there was no vulgarity or slander in it didnt seem to be wrongful any more than it was eye opening at all. to be honest most of the things the N.S.F the agency responsible for investing tax payer money in the name of scientific achievment do is fruitless in terms of profit it only benefits them and the people they “choose” doesn’t benefit america but we pay for it anyway its almost as if we’re giving them the “enjoy the world b4 it ends” bailout package if your intellectually aware and not oblivious then you know what i mean. For example the oil spill they paid some research group a “rapid response grant” to research the oil spill what good is that gonna do we’re gonna pay them to fix the unfixable(oh and also aids research is a good example of this, what im talkin about), i mean don’t get me wrong but im 100% sure that even einstein couldn’t solve these problems for us, but yet, even if they cant we still pay them (our grocery money) for there (fruitless) efforts and not only that theres more and Yes its common look it up partner and you will see for yourself

Add your own answer in the comments!

2 Replies to “How common is the bogus medical/health research study?”

  1. as someone who has been involved both in raising money for research, and in evaluating other people’s proposals, let me assure you that getting NIH funding means you have to win out in an extremely tough competition.

    You don’t know the full details of the research, and exactly how it differs from others in the same general area.

    If you’re really interested, you can find out the details of the research from UCLA, and the abstract of the proposal is public domain information. You can also do a literature search (pubmed, or Google scholar) to find out exactly what is already known on the subject.

    Your smoking example is interesting. The basic work with some 50 years ago, but recent work has established the hazards of secondhand smoke and occupational environment smoke, leading to legislation that has saved many lives.

    What is EXTREMELY common in America is people who know so little about science that they are not even aware of the extent of their own ignorance. Some of them get to have their own TV talk shows.

    Edit: hjlk illustrates the point. He doesn’t even know that the rapid response grant concerned the environmental effect of detergents that might be used to break up the oil slick, to see whether they would do more harm than good. We need to KNOW that, NOW, and we don’t.

  2. I think the problem with this research is its ambiguous nature. Is it aimed at obtaining important new medical findings? No. Taking into consideration its focus on educational intervention, I’m quite certain the “study” will deal mainly with pedagogy. As for the ingenuity of the proposed pedagogy by the research team at UCLA, I have to admit there is nothing new, creative, or clever. The information sheet with Institutional Review Board #G06-08-037-02 states the procedure as in person interview, distribution of written information, discussion, telephone interview, and medical records review. Simply out, it is the duplication of the community based program aimed at increasing awareness of cancer among the minority population. When a myriad of ethno-cultural community organizations are engaging in the same program, why would a needless research team create another variation all at public expense? The researcher in charge of the study mentioned in the question is Roshan Bastani Ph. D at UCLA and the following is from her email response:
    “The purpose of the study is to test the effectiveness of and(sic) educational intervention designed to improve the health of Korean Americans. If we learn that the intervention we are testing is effective, and therefore can serve to improve the health of Korean Americans, it will be provided to the larger Korean American church community at no charge. Neither myself, nor any member of the research team, will benefit from financial profit as a result of information obtained from research participants in this study.”
    The important question remains. How do you correctly determine the effectiveness of the program devised by her research team? A slight increase in medical testing, exams, and treatment among Asian Americans? A decrease in the occurrence of certain types of cancer among them? These criteria are not solely dependent upon the program devised but upon other factors such as rate of immigration, economic stability, etc as well.
    Do I believe this study is useless? Absolutely. As to how common such nonsense is, I don’t know. An interesting point has been made by one of the contributors about secondhand smoking. As a skeptic, I see no strong correlation between cancer and secondhand smoke. If there’s correlation, it’s only tenuous.

Leave a Reply