Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: goldworldnet who wrote (699106)	9/1/2005 1:06:42 PM
From: paret	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

True--and funny as hell. All the sheep like Buddy believe every word their "news" media and the "science" industry tells them.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (699106)	9/1/2005 1:28:56 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 769670

Researcher admits fraud in grant data Ex-Vermont scientist won nearly $3m from US By Carey Goldberg and Scott Allen, Boston Globe Staff \| March 18, 2005 In the worst case of scientific fakery to come to light in two decades, a top obesity researcher who long worked at the University of Vermont admitted yesterday that he fabricated data in 17 applications for federal grants to make his work seem more promising, helping him win nearly $3 million in Eric T. Poehlman, a leading specialist on metabolic changes during aging, acknowledged that he altered and made up research results from 1992 to 2002, including findings published in medical journals that overstated the effect of menopause on women's health. Under a plea agreement with federal prosecutors, Poehlman, 49, will be barred for life from receiving federal funding, pay back $180,000, and plead guilty to a criminal charge of fraud that could bring jail time. He agreed to ask scientific journals to retract and correct 10 articles they published by him. ''Dr. Poehlman fraudulently diverted millions of dollars," said David V. Kirby, the US attorney for Vermont. ''This in turn siphoned millions of dollars from the pool of resources available for valid scientific research proposals. As this prosecution proves, such conduct will not be tolerated." The fraud charge carries up to five years in prison, but lawyers involved in the case said Poehlman would ask for leniency and would probably get a lesser sentence or possibly no prison time at all. Poehlman's misconduct was detected and exposed by a former University of Vermont lab technician, Walter F. DeNino, who once viewed Poehlman as his mentor. Poehlman was a star among obesity researchers. For years at the Universities of Vermont and Maryland and, since 2001, at the Université de Montréal, he won millions in grant dollars, copious prizes, and accolades from the students he mentored. Over two decades in which he published more than 200 journal articles, he built a reputation as a leading authority on the metabolic changes that come with aging, particularly during menopause. He also studied the genetics of obesity and the impact of exercise, often following human subjects over time to document how their physiology changed. Now that stellar career has unraveled. Poehlman resigned from the Université de Montréal in January. He did not respond to requests left at his Montreal home and with his attorney to be interviewed. Some colleagues speculated that Poehlman buckled to an exaggerated perception of the pressure to publish papers and win grants to keep his laboratory going. Or perhaps he was so sure he knew the right answers that he cut corners to get to them, they said. DeNino, the lab technician, said in an interview that he does not know what Poehlman was thinking, but the benefits were clear: The fabricated data made his grant proposals more appealing and his papers more publishable, helping Poehlman become one of the better-funded researchers at the University of Vermont. Continued...

To: goldworldnet who wrote (699106)	9/1/2005 1:42:55 PM
From: paret	Respond to of 769670

Prozac Pushing Stooge "Researcher" Paid Under the Table by Drug Manufacturers Psychiatric Association to investigate Brown University 10/6/99 PROVIDENCE, R.I. (AP) - The American Psychiatric Association plans to investigate a report that the head of Brown University's psychiatric department failed to disclose more than $500,000 in consulting fees, most from pharmaceutical companies whose health benefits he praised in journals and at conferences. Dr. Martin Keller, a noted researcher on depression, could be banned from APA-sponsored conferences if he did not follow the group's policies for financial disclosures, association spokeswoman Lynn Writsel said Wednesday. The Boston Globe reported this week that Keller failed to disclose that he was paid more than $500,000 in consulting fees in 1998. Most of the money came from pharmaceutical companies whose drugs he praised in medical journals and at the APA's annual meeting this year and last, the newspaper reported. Keller, of Newton, Mass. could not be reached at his home or office for comment, and did not return messages left at both places. The Globe reported that Keller received consulting fees from companies such as Pfizer Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst, and Eli Lilly - all of which market antidepressants he praised in a series of medical research reports. The school said Keller followed the school's rules to the letter. It requires annual conflict-of-interest reports for researchers who make more than $10,000 or 10 percent in equity. The reports are reviewed by a misconduct committee and the dean of the graduate school. But the school does not require disclosure of specific dollar amounts earned. Writsel said an association committee will review Keller's case later this month. If the committee determines punishment is necessary, it could range from a warning to a ban from making any presentations at future meetings. Larry Sasich, a health-research analyst for Public Citizen, a Washington watchdog organization, said it is important for researchers to disclose the full extent of their financial ties with the maker of a drug they are researching. ``The fundamental basis of scientific research is that there is an open and honest presentation of the data that is not cooked, not slanted,'' Sasich said. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- . The Globe reported that Keller received consulting fees from companies such as Pfizer Inc., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wyeth-Ayerst, and Eli Lilly - all of which market antidepressants he praised in a series of medical research reports.

To: goldworldnet who wrote (699106)	9/2/2005 12:24:38 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Respond to of 769670

"Most published scientific research papers are wrong, according to a new analysis." Of course!!!!!! That is how science works! (Most of the scientific theories that I was taught as a child have since been overturned and replaced with superior theories that better match the available evidence....) You publish a hypothesis, along with your supporting data... and then it is subjected to peer review... criticism... alternative hypothesis are put forward... they are debated, etc. Ultimately (if the hypothesis proves to have PREDICTIVE VALIDITY, and the evidence is replicable by other testers) then it advances into the realm of 'accepted wisdom', and is called a "theory" --- that is, only until a SUPERIOR explanation of the evidence is put forward and proven out. That is how science advances. NO KNOWLEDGE is absolute, NOTHING is not subject to the potential to be over-turned and replaced with a theory that explains the evidence BETTER. So, those Creationists had better GET CRACKING in the laboratory and come up with some hard, replicatable evidence. Until and unless they do, they haven't even met the standards for a theory yet... all they have is an untestable hypothesis. (PS, if you think that politicos are better at making scientific and medical decisions then scientists and physicians... I'd only ask: WHERE is their equivalent of a peer review process? HOW are their backroom decisions supposed to be subjected to impartial testing????)