The project is really only then a fail if you produce not one primary outcome (c) or secondary outcome (b) that equates in medical practice impact. Why that should happen would be good to know for the afterworld.
Your primary project outputs (c) will also be able to make those headlines & acts of self-aggrandization easy for you. This might even allow the project to get funding for longer periods.
And later replicating Opensafely's strategy might allow this project to become infrastructure.
PS: I read your original & 1 year to get funding for something sensible that is well prepared seems really good.
PPS: Btw i cried tears of laughter when reading about Ivan Oransky being your Boss & you being in the business of self aggrandizing, as the partridge got me good.
This really makes me happy and excited. Ever since I read an article in a Dutch newspaper about Elisabeth Bik, I’ve slowly gone down the rabbit hole of deliberate scientific fraud. It’s incredibly frustrating that the very institutions that should take action—universities and scientific journals—deliberately choose not to, out of fear for their reputations. I believe that’s where a crucial leverage point lies: calling out and naming this indifference. As you said: LOUDLY.
The focus on “bad research killing or hurting people” is absolutely spot on. The KNMG (Royal Dutch Medical Association) outlines several key principles. The first: “As a physician, you prioritize the health and well-being of the patient and do not cause unnecessary harm. You act in accordance with good medical practice.” Also the seventh: “As a physician, you provide good care in line with the professional standard, including quality standards.” The twelfth: “As a physician, you avoid conflicts of interest that could harm the patient or undermine trust in healthcare. You are transparent about any other interests.” And the fifteenth: “As a physician, you contribute to the advancement of medicine and healthcare to the best of your ability.” Based on these principles, it could actually be considered a disciplinary offense for any Dutch doctor not to act on a suspicion of “bad research killing or hurting people.”
Although you mentioned that training a team of sleuths is not your ambition, I do think it would be helpful to establish accessible points of contact per country and medical specialty. Additionally, I believe that—if the process is user-friendly—many medical specialists would be willing to contribute through internal reviews and/or (anonymous) tips. Right now, there are simply too few channels for acting on that “something’s not right” feeling. It would also likely be easier to attract media attention regularly through local contributors.
Lastly, regarding cases of misconduct combined with stock trading—what’s your view on short selling, like in the Cassava case? Do you think this approach could work more often?
In any case, if you ever need a Dutch person with a background in orthopedic surgery and biomechanics: I’m more than happy to help.
I hope this project succeeds. I'm not sure if this is the type of thing you're interested in exactly, but I've recently been finding joy in using probabilistic data reconstruction to investigate the plausibility of published epidemiological results. The idea is to take all the information given about a dataset/cohort/set of trial participants in a published paper, and combining this with the published effect size estimates and uncertainties (and anything else that is said about the analysis), to reconstruct either a single copy of the dataset that must match the one that was used, or a set of plausible datasets that match the given constraints. This dataset (or set of plausible datasets) can then be re-analysed to check assumptions and details of the methodology used. Sounds too abstract? Okay, imagine you have a paper claiming a huge effect size of influenza vaccination on heart attack risk based on a case control analysis. You reconstruct the data, and find that within the same sample, applying the same methods, it should be concluded that smoking protects against heart attacks. There, you've uncovered some bad science.
The link to Nature isn't working. I do not trust that publication.
Metascience sounds like metaphysics, but you are talking about a form of *control* on human scientific knowledge/advancement to make it more reliable, not any reference to philosophy, right? (I know that might seem obvious, but I wanted to confirm.)
I am concerned that "big science" is too captured by the political narrative of the Left (e.g. bogus "climate change" crap, not to mention the plandemic) to be saved. Does your project address this concern?
I hope that your 'metascience' gets recognized for 'real science', and cures the infection of elitist political narrative in today's "science."
I am happy to find you here. Saw the information about the project in the RetractionWatch newsletter this morning. I am a retired anesthesiologist and have since then gained a certificate in Data Science. I am happy to volunteer for your project if you think I could be of help.
The RSS / ASS / SSA magazine, Significance, has a regular series: 'Bad stats: A regular series exploring slip-ups, snafus and salutary lessons from the world of statistics'. You may like to contact the editor about making a contribution on a specific case of zombie study affecting guidelines. You may even make some friends (adverse events are an inherent risk of direct action).
I am thrilled to see this vital work get such significant backing, especially after following your insights for a while now (we also had some exchange in the past here). The Nature piece was a great signal, too.
Your call to be "LOUDLY" about this and for everyone to know resonates with me: "stop bad medical evidence making people sick or dead. That is all I care about," is very much the spirit behind my own fledgling project, "Double Check Doc" here on Substack and on Medium.
At DCD, I scrutinize medical evidence and how it's presented/interpreted, though perhaps more from a critical appraisal and "what does this mean for patients or my readers?" angle than the deep forensic metascience you're championing.
But the ultimate goal is absolutely aligned: to "make less dead people" by ensuring the evidence we rely on is as sound as possible. We're trying to get people to look twice, to question, and to understand the nuances behind the headlines.
When you mentioned needing "new places to write" and to get the word out, a thought sparked. Double Check Doc is still in its early days on Substack – we're a small but engaged and growing community of around 300 subscribers who are keenly interested in research integrity and evidence-based medicine.
I also publish DCD content on Medium, where I've built a following of close to 9,000 and have around 600 direct email subscribers. My intention is to gradually bring that larger audience over to the DCD Substack.
I wondered if, in your quest to be "LOUDLY," you might ever consider an outlet like Double Check Doc for some of your project's communications, insights, or even cross-posting select pieces if that aligns with your strategy?
It wouldn't be about DCD taking credit for your forensic work, but rather offering another channel – a friendly "megaphone" if you will – to amplify your crucial findings to an audience that, I believe, would be incredibly receptive and could help spread the word further. Your project updates, or even reflections on the "why" behind what you do, would be fascinating for DCD readers.
I'm fully aware DCD is a much smaller platform than where your work rightly deserves to be, but I believe our audiences and missions are highly compatible. If nothing else, consider me one of the "new friends" you mentioned, eager to help amplify your efforts in whatever small way I can.
No pressure at all, of course – I know you're going to be incredibly busy getting the MEP off the ground.
But if the idea of reaching another engaged audience, however modestly sized for now but with growth potential, piques your interest even slightly, I'd be happy to chat briefly or correspond further.
Either way, I'm excited to see what the Medical Evidence Project achieves. It feels, as you said, like the start of something better.
We'll have a whole bunch of stuff for cross-posting. Some of it that's on general release you can potentially have under embargo. Eventually that will be an editor decision, not mine - my job is to hurt the feelings, their job will be to make it sounds like we meant it.
Absolutely thrilling. I dream that universities will so quickly tire of their “scientists’” BS being exposed that they will take on this job themselves in order to save future dire embarrassment.
Maybe by targeting research emanating from a particular university, others might start quaking in fear that they’ll be next.
It’s mean, but so is enabling research that harms or kills people.
I understand people cutting corners if just publishing some abstract academic nonsense no-one will ever read. It still shouldn't happen, but people are human. If the work is doing damage, though, my sympathy for any negative consequences is zero. We're supposed to have standards, and we're supposed to respect them even more when it's important.
I am happy how it has gone so far.
It is an interesting development, somehow difficult to predict, and yet long overdue.
I wish you and the project the best of luck, I am very moved...
Thanks. Appreciate that.
The project is really only then a fail if you produce not one primary outcome (c) or secondary outcome (b) that equates in medical practice impact. Why that should happen would be good to know for the afterworld.
Your primary project outputs (c) will also be able to make those headlines & acts of self-aggrandization easy for you. This might even allow the project to get funding for longer periods.
And later replicating Opensafely's strategy might allow this project to become infrastructure.
PS: I read your original & 1 year to get funding for something sensible that is well prepared seems really good.
PPS: Btw i cried tears of laughter when reading about Ivan Oransky being your Boss & you being in the business of self aggrandizing, as the partridge got me good.
See, you get it. Obviously it's designed to be generative over time. We'll have to see how we go.
This really makes me happy and excited. Ever since I read an article in a Dutch newspaper about Elisabeth Bik, I’ve slowly gone down the rabbit hole of deliberate scientific fraud. It’s incredibly frustrating that the very institutions that should take action—universities and scientific journals—deliberately choose not to, out of fear for their reputations. I believe that’s where a crucial leverage point lies: calling out and naming this indifference. As you said: LOUDLY.
The focus on “bad research killing or hurting people” is absolutely spot on. The KNMG (Royal Dutch Medical Association) outlines several key principles. The first: “As a physician, you prioritize the health and well-being of the patient and do not cause unnecessary harm. You act in accordance with good medical practice.” Also the seventh: “As a physician, you provide good care in line with the professional standard, including quality standards.” The twelfth: “As a physician, you avoid conflicts of interest that could harm the patient or undermine trust in healthcare. You are transparent about any other interests.” And the fifteenth: “As a physician, you contribute to the advancement of medicine and healthcare to the best of your ability.” Based on these principles, it could actually be considered a disciplinary offense for any Dutch doctor not to act on a suspicion of “bad research killing or hurting people.”
Although you mentioned that training a team of sleuths is not your ambition, I do think it would be helpful to establish accessible points of contact per country and medical specialty. Additionally, I believe that—if the process is user-friendly—many medical specialists would be willing to contribute through internal reviews and/or (anonymous) tips. Right now, there are simply too few channels for acting on that “something’s not right” feeling. It would also likely be easier to attract media attention regularly through local contributors.
Lastly, regarding cases of misconduct combined with stock trading—what’s your view on short selling, like in the Cassava case? Do you think this approach could work more often?
In any case, if you ever need a Dutch person with a background in orthopedic surgery and biomechanics: I’m more than happy to help.
It seems more than likely I do, I'll message you.
I hope this project succeeds. I'm not sure if this is the type of thing you're interested in exactly, but I've recently been finding joy in using probabilistic data reconstruction to investigate the plausibility of published epidemiological results. The idea is to take all the information given about a dataset/cohort/set of trial participants in a published paper, and combining this with the published effect size estimates and uncertainties (and anything else that is said about the analysis), to reconstruct either a single copy of the dataset that must match the one that was used, or a set of plausible datasets that match the given constraints. This dataset (or set of plausible datasets) can then be re-analysed to check assumptions and details of the methodology used. Sounds too abstract? Okay, imagine you have a paper claiming a huge effect size of influenza vaccination on heart attack risk based on a case control analysis. You reconstruct the data, and find that within the same sample, applying the same methods, it should be concluded that smoking protects against heart attacks. There, you've uncovered some bad science.
That doesn't sound abstract at all. That's basically what we do with SPRITE. It's good fun.
Sounds promising. Still reading, but:
The link to Nature isn't working. I do not trust that publication.
Metascience sounds like metaphysics, but you are talking about a form of *control* on human scientific knowledge/advancement to make it more reliable, not any reference to philosophy, right? (I know that might seem obvious, but I wanted to confirm.)
I am concerned that "big science" is too captured by the political narrative of the Left (e.g. bogus "climate change" crap, not to mention the plandemic) to be saved. Does your project address this concern?
I hope that your 'metascience' gets recognized for 'real science', and cures the infection of elitist political narrative in today's "science."
I am happy to find you here. Saw the information about the project in the RetractionWatch newsletter this morning. I am a retired anesthesiologist and have since then gained a certificate in Data Science. I am happy to volunteer for your project if you think I could be of help.
Good to hear. I'll message you.
The RSS / ASS / SSA magazine, Significance, has a regular series: 'Bad stats: A regular series exploring slip-ups, snafus and salutary lessons from the world of statistics'. You may like to contact the editor about making a contribution on a specific case of zombie study affecting guidelines. You may even make some friends (adverse events are an inherent risk of direct action).
.... no-one has suggested that before and I don't hate it. Nice one.
I am thrilled to see this vital work get such significant backing, especially after following your insights for a while now (we also had some exchange in the past here). The Nature piece was a great signal, too.
Your call to be "LOUDLY" about this and for everyone to know resonates with me: "stop bad medical evidence making people sick or dead. That is all I care about," is very much the spirit behind my own fledgling project, "Double Check Doc" here on Substack and on Medium.
At DCD, I scrutinize medical evidence and how it's presented/interpreted, though perhaps more from a critical appraisal and "what does this mean for patients or my readers?" angle than the deep forensic metascience you're championing.
But the ultimate goal is absolutely aligned: to "make less dead people" by ensuring the evidence we rely on is as sound as possible. We're trying to get people to look twice, to question, and to understand the nuances behind the headlines.
When you mentioned needing "new places to write" and to get the word out, a thought sparked. Double Check Doc is still in its early days on Substack – we're a small but engaged and growing community of around 300 subscribers who are keenly interested in research integrity and evidence-based medicine.
I also publish DCD content on Medium, where I've built a following of close to 9,000 and have around 600 direct email subscribers. My intention is to gradually bring that larger audience over to the DCD Substack.
I wondered if, in your quest to be "LOUDLY," you might ever consider an outlet like Double Check Doc for some of your project's communications, insights, or even cross-posting select pieces if that aligns with your strategy?
It wouldn't be about DCD taking credit for your forensic work, but rather offering another channel – a friendly "megaphone" if you will – to amplify your crucial findings to an audience that, I believe, would be incredibly receptive and could help spread the word further. Your project updates, or even reflections on the "why" behind what you do, would be fascinating for DCD readers.
I'm fully aware DCD is a much smaller platform than where your work rightly deserves to be, but I believe our audiences and missions are highly compatible. If nothing else, consider me one of the "new friends" you mentioned, eager to help amplify your efforts in whatever small way I can.
No pressure at all, of course – I know you're going to be incredibly busy getting the MEP off the ground.
But if the idea of reaching another engaged audience, however modestly sized for now but with growth potential, piques your interest even slightly, I'd be happy to chat briefly or correspond further.
Either way, I'm excited to see what the Medical Evidence Project achieves. It feels, as you said, like the start of something better.
We'll have a whole bunch of stuff for cross-posting. Some of it that's on general release you can potentially have under embargo. Eventually that will be an editor decision, not mine - my job is to hurt the feelings, their job will be to make it sounds like we meant it.
Great, Any time you have a post that you feel like publishing on DCD, I'm happy to do that.
Absolutely thrilling. I dream that universities will so quickly tire of their “scientists’” BS being exposed that they will take on this job themselves in order to save future dire embarrassment.
Maybe by targeting research emanating from a particular university, others might start quaking in fear that they’ll be next.
It’s mean, but so is enabling research that harms or kills people.
I understand people cutting corners if just publishing some abstract academic nonsense no-one will ever read. It still shouldn't happen, but people are human. If the work is doing damage, though, my sympathy for any negative consequences is zero. We're supposed to have standards, and we're supposed to respect them even more when it's important.