> Without a background in biochemistry,what good is it going to do to do your own research on the Covid vaccine?

So only lawyers should question law, only engineers should work to develop technical solutions to human problems etc?

> "free speech absolutist"

This is a PHILOSOPHY sub for Plato's sake, I would think if anywhere, free speech absolutism ought to be held in high regard here?

Try writing something interesting.

You didn't present any arguments to respond to, just name calling.

> tinfoil

Solid argument. No you!

The whole serotonin theory of depression is false but the $20,000,000,000 SSRI industry marches on. It's a very clear case of corrupt science.

Worshiping science is unscientific and leads to immoral outcomes, you should stop doing that.

Yes the last post was my original opinion backed by the study excerpt I helpfully posted for your education previous to that.

Welcome to philosophy.

The 'scientific consensus' was and is wrong, people have been medicated with ineffective and dangerous drugs while effective treatment eg ketamine isn't being widely used for treatment. This didn't happen by accident.

Yes I can read, can you?

> The chemical imbalance theory of depression is still put forward by professionals [17], and the serotonin theory, in particular, has formed the basis of a considerable research effort over the last few decades [14]. The general public widely believes that depression has been convincingly demonstrated to be the result of serotonin or other chemical abnormalities [15, 16], and this belief shapes how people understand their moods, leading to a pessimistic outlook on the outcome of depression and negative expectancies about the possibility of self-regulation of mood [64,65,66]. The idea that depression is the result of a chemical imbalance also influences decisions about whether to take or continue antidepressant medication and may discourage people from discontinuing treatment, potentially leading to lifelong dependence on these drugs [67, 68].

>therapists don't rely on questionable research in psychology

Yes they do, that's the point - whole medical industries are based on fictions.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-022-01661-0

I thought peer review was supposed to weed out the nonsense, not a meta study decades after the subject causes a massive wave of fatalities?

You said

> Just because there are negative side effects like to a drug (like addiction) does not mean it’s development process was flawed

Either the process is flawed, or killing a ton of people was the intention.

You are shilling for an immoral nexus of pharm $, regulatory capture and corrupt science:

> FDA failure to obtain adequate evidence of effectiveness was not limited to oxycodone. Over the past 25 years, despite mounting evidence that a surge in opioid consumption was resulting in adverse public health consequences, the FDA continued to approve new opioid formulations for chronic pain based on efficacy trials utilizing a controversial methodology called enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal (EERW).26 Since its 2006 approval of oxymorphone, the FDA has relied on EERW as evidence of opioid efficacy for chronic pain.27 EERW trials differ from traditional double-blind, randomized, controlled studies. In an EERW trial, prior to randomization for a double-blind phase, all subjects are made physiologically dependent on the opioid in a 4- to 6-week open-label phase. Then only the patients who tolerated the opioid and found it helpful during the open-label phase are randomized to remain on the opioid or switch to a placebo. Critics of EERW have correctly described this methodology as “cooking the books” for 2 reasons.28 First, because only patients who tolerated the opioid and found it helpful are allowed to proceed to randomization, the study is not representative of the general population, and the results cannot be generalized to clinical practice. Second, because daily use of opioids causes physiological dependence, efficacy results are skewed in favor of the subjects who remain on the opioid. This is because opioid-dependent subjects who are switched to placebo experience opioid withdrawal symptoms, including increased sensitivity to pain. Moreover, switching opioid-dependent subjects to placebo renders the study not truly double-blind. The FDA’s decision to rely on EERW trial methodology is a consequence of the agency’s close ties to industry. In fact, the FDA’s decision to use EERW for analgesics was based on discussions at private meetings between FDA officials and pharmaceutical company executives hosted by an organization called Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT).29 Drug companies paid up to $35 000 each for the opportunity to attend IMMPACT meetings and interact with FDA staff.29 Yet, despite the uproar that followed public disclosure of the IMMPACT meetings, the FDA continues to rely on EERW trials as evidence that opioids are effective for chronic pain.

https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/how-fda-failures-contributed-opioid-crisis/2020-08

Well the drug in question seems to have qualities that spawned a massive public health emergency, record settlements etc, if there is to be a discussion of a crisis in scientific credibility that seems like a reasonable starting point as OP points out. How does a defender of the pharma establishment explain the variance between trials vs real life outcomes? Gross incompetence seems unlikely?

> you already made up your mind apparently so i dont know why your here.

I find the argument made in the OP to be logical and persuasive.

> if you cant think of any possible reasons oxy was passed other then money then god help you (its not like oxy has any medical applications. ffs using your logic all painkillers are designed to make money. fuck me you probably think pharma likes cancer and wouldnt cure it if they could).

Oxycontin is more addictive with similar efficacy compared to other opioids. Why do you think it was pushed, if not for the billions of usd profit?

> It is a problem, but it is not like modern science is anywhere close to fraud

Within certain fields ie psychology, the meta studies mentioned in OP are showing 50% non reproducibility. That is a major problem.

Think about it - was oxycontin nonaddictive? Do SSRIs work? Vioxx? Phen-Phen? Adderall?

There is a crisis ongoing.

> You share the results so that the next trial done on the same patient population can be designed to yield an even better outcome and as part of the drug/device approval process.

So what went wrong with this process re: oxycontin? Why was that drug approval process so flawed?

> Additionally, you’re fixated on just this oxy question for some reason.

Leading cause of death for 18-45 adults in usa. No big deal?

> eating is more important that holding to your ideals.

That is an extremely morally dubious claim.

Opioid overdoses are the #1 cause of death for adults 18-45 in usa... the Sacklers didn't make that happen without many accomplices with impressive science titles.

> you’re directly trying to link “corruption” with the reproducibility crisis

Data that doesn't reflect objective reality is by definition corrupted, but yes of course human-related financial corruption is a major factor- from the clinic to the corpotate pharm boardroom. How could it possibly not be a factor, given human nature? What other explaination would you propose for the scientific vetting of oxycontin?

> I’m a career scientist

Who funds your grants?

Regardless of the purpose of a given study, if it isn't reproducible it isn't scientifically valid, full stop.

> dangerous misinformation

Oh! Better alert the guardians!

> doing science, especially biological science, is very difficult to fully control

It wasn't brand-related enzymatic variance that caused oxycontin to be proclaimed non addictive. You're trying to obscure the argument with overtechnicality and moralistic finger wagging. How dare I criticise science? Bud, you're in the wrong sub.

Sciece results can be replicated by definition.

> follow up study

Go find it. Use the internet.

> a lot of prerequisites or best practices that exist at one university or within one discipline are left out of the publication

So you think journals are omitting methodology to save on what, printing costs?

The crisis is systemic: researchers are forced to 'publish or perish' while those dying from little understood causes are blocked from accessing said knowledge... the whole thing is designed to enrich few at the cost of the many imo, not to accurately conduct scientific investigation and communicate findings for the benefit of humans and our habitat.

u/mechanab is ranting.