Discussion:
Science has a reproducibility problem
(too old to reply)
Clay
2017-06-01 04:25:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
A few years back, scientists at the biotechnology company Amgen set
out to replicate 53 landmark studies that argued for new approaches to
treat cancers using both existing and new molecules. They were able to
replicate the findings of the original research only 11 percent of the
time.

In 2011, Bayer pharmaceuticals reported similar reproduction work. Of
the 67 projects they conducted to rerun experiments (47 of which
involved cancer), only about 25 percent ended with results in line
with the original findings.

https://nyti.ms/2scNFLl
mainframetech
2017-06-01 13:54:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clay
A few years back, scientists at the biotechnology company Amgen set
out to replicate 53 landmark studies that argued for new approaches to
treat cancers using both existing and new molecules. They were able to
replicate the findings of the original research only 11 percent of the
time.
In 2011, Bayer pharmaceuticals reported similar reproduction work. Of
the 67 projects they conducted to rerun experiments (47 of which
involved cancer), only about 25 percent ended with results in line
with the original findings.
https://nyti.ms/2scNFLl
Hundreds of studies done with the compound Artemisinin have come up with the same result. It kills most types of cancer without losing hair, or causing nausea or any bad side effects, and it does it quickly:

"Conclusion: This rapid induction of apoptosis in cancer cells after treatment with DHA indicates that artemisinin and its analogs may be inexpensive and effective cancer agents."

From: http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/24/4/2277.abstract

apoptosis = the death of cells that occurs as a normal and controlled part of an organism's growth or development.


Also:

http://www.cancure.org/12-links-page/43-artemesia

https://www.drlam.com/blog/artemisinin-cancer-research/19627/

"Generally, chemotherapy is toxic to both cancer cells and normal cells. In the case of artemisinin this is not true; only the cancer cells are damaged. In more than 4000 case studies, no significant toxicity from artemisinin has been found, which makes it far different than conventional chemotherapy."

From: http://www.doctorsaputo.com/a/artemisinin-a-cancer-smart-bomb

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/02/09/7694.aspx

And on and on.

Chris
The Newest Other Guy
2017-06-01 19:34:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Hundreds of studies done with the compound Artemisinin have come up with the same result.
Hundreds of NON-scientific (anecdotal mostly) studies.
Clay
2017-06-02 02:35:09 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Newest Other Guy
On Thu, 1 Jun 2017 06:54:51 -0700 (PDT), mainframetech
Post by mainframetech
Hundreds of studies done with the compound Artemisinin have come up with the same result.
Hundreds of NON-scientific (anecdotal mostly) studies.
Looks like they're working on it.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=artemisinin+cancer
Bob Officer
2017-06-12 23:52:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by mainframetech
Post by Clay
A few years back, scientists at the biotechnology company Amgen set
out to replicate 53 landmark studies that argued for new approaches to
treat cancers using both existing and new molecules. They were able to
replicate the findings of the original research only 11 percent of the
time.
In 2011, Bayer pharmaceuticals reported similar reproduction work. Of
the 67 projects they conducted to rerun experiments (47 of which
involved cancer), only about 25 percent ended with results in line
with the original findings.
https://nyti.ms/2scNFLl
Hundreds of studies done with the compound Artemisinin have come up
with the same result. It kills most types of cancer without losing hair,
"Conclusion: This rapid induction of apoptosis in cancer cells after
treatment with DHA indicates that artemisinin and its analogs may be
inexpensive and effective cancer agents."
From: http://ar.iiarjournals.org/content/24/4/2277.abstract
apoptosis = the death of cells that occurs as a normal and controlled
part of an organism's growth or development.
http://www.cancure.org/12-links-page/43-artemesia
https://www.drlam.com/blog/artemisinin-cancer-research/19627/
"Generally, chemotherapy is toxic to both cancer cells and normal cells.
In the case of artemisinin this is not true; only the cancer cells are
damaged. In more than 4000 case studies, no significant toxicity from
artemisinin has been found, which makes it far different than conventional chemotherapy."
From: http://www.doctorsaputo.com/a/artemisinin-a-cancer-smart-bomb
http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/02/09/7694.aspx
And on and on.
Chris
Sigh,
Do you try to wrong all the time, Chris?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5831a3.htm
https://malariaworld.org/blog/chronic-toxicity-artesunate-and-artemether
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity
http://youtu.be/wvVPdyYeaQU
Stephen Fry on Dunning Kruger examples:
http://youtu.be/rW9R6jgE7SQ
Henry Mydlarz
2017-06-01 23:01:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clay
A few years back, scientists at the biotechnology company Amgen set
out to replicate 53 landmark studies that argued for new approaches to
treat cancers using both existing and new molecules. They were able to
replicate the findings of the original research only 11 percent of the
time.
In 2011, Bayer pharmaceuticals reported similar reproduction work. Of
the 67 projects they conducted to rerun experiments (47 of which
involved cancer), only about 25 percent ended with results in line
with the original findings.
https://nyti.ms/2scNFLl
Some decades ago when I used to work at a Post office establishment, we ran
about ten thousand Postal Notes through a sorting machine which also counted
them.

The OIC (Officer in Charge) wanted to be sure of the count, so we ran them
through again. The count was different. We ran them through a further three
or four times, and got a different reading each time. In the end we gave up.

Henry.
Clay
2017-06-02 02:06:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Henry Mydlarz
Post by Clay
A few years back, scientists at the biotechnology company Amgen set
out to replicate 53 landmark studies that argued for new approaches to
treat cancers using both existing and new molecules. They were able to
replicate the findings of the original research only 11 percent of the
time.
In 2011, Bayer pharmaceuticals reported similar reproduction work. Of
the 67 projects they conducted to rerun experiments (47 of which
involved cancer), only about 25 percent ended with results in line
with the original findings.
https://nyti.ms/2scNFLl
Some decades ago when I used to work at a Post office establishment,
we ran about ten thousand Postal Notes through a sorting machine
which also counted them.
The OIC (Officer in Charge) wanted to be sure of the count, so we
ran them through again. The count was different. We ran them through
a further three or four times, and got a different reading each time.
In the end we gave up.
Maybe he should have taken the average, if not requisitioned a new machine?
Bob Officer
2017-06-06 01:48:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Clay
A few years back, scientists at the biotechnology company Amgen set
out to replicate 53 landmark studies that argued for new approaches to
treat cancers using both existing and new molecules. They were able to
replicate the findings of the original research only 11 percent of the
time.
In 2011, Bayer pharmaceuticals reported similar reproduction work. Of
the 67 projects they conducted to rerun experiments (47 of which
involved cancer), only about 25 percent ended with results in line
with the original findings.
https://nyti.ms/2scNFLl
Many variables involved in many experiments are not always recorded or
published.

When back in school in biology lab, we conducted an experiment to
illustrate some principle growing a culture in a Petri dish. The experiment
did not duplicate the text book. The reason we found out later, was the
janitor was unplugging the environmental controls of the incubation
chamber, which causing the temperature to vary, spoiling the outcome of the
experiment.

While I look at this with a skeptic eye, I wonder just how they went about
duplication?..
--
Dunning's work explained in clear, concise and simple terms.
John Cleese on Stupidity

Stephen Fry on Dunning Kruger examples:

Loading...