Leaderboard

Yes, but the issue here is that it is not deception per se. It's more subtle than that. As I understand it, it is rewarding researchers that manage - whether by good science, luck or bending their findings - to get the sort of results the big man hopes for, to support his theory. And presumably by burying the careers of those unfortunate researchers that can't replicate the findings, or get positive results. In medicine in particular, there seems to be a culture of the big man: the eminent doctor or surgeon whom everyone wants to consult, whom everyone wants to study under and who has extensive powers of patronage. So, without any actual overt malpractice, a system can be created that is biased towards finding convenient rather than inconvenient results. And then the temptation to fabricate, to discard -ve data and so forth is there.

Unfortunately, the problem is not limited to a few certain persons. Yes, obviously it is a good thing that these issues are exposed. That's why we need police. Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials. How many studies are faked or flawed? (nature.com)

Actually outright falsification (if done well) are really hard to spot in a peer-review process. While there are calls for open data to address these issues, there are a huge load of limitations (both structural and practical). There is no easy solutions, but one obvious red flag is the culture that he cultivated. If you force your team to get a specific result, well, there is a good chance that you get it, if you just demand hard enough... But I do agree, the fact that these issues are exposed is on a whole a good thing.

It got noticed and exposed. In a roundabout way that has to be good news. Science is built around documentation and making it widely available for evaluation and critique by their peers. In fields with few participants and little outside interest I suppose data tampering can go unnoticed for longer but cheaters who have to document their lies will always be at risk of exposure.

From a different perspective, it appeared you were badgering a newbie, @Benjamin Karl, who was not making a claim but rather requesting opinions on the claims made in a video. Whose points he courteously summarized when asked to. While he could be encouraged to dig deeper for other sources, I am not sure that your tone was that of a friendly guide in that quest.

Right, there are some studies that show no correlation and some that show a correlation. I guess we would need to do a systematic review of the literature to really know which direction the evidence is pointing to. No strong evidence does not mean no evidence. I was never claiming there is conclusive evidence. The very text you quoted says "in man, results were less clear and often conflicting," "more recent studies report on a limited correlation," "reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen." Like I said, it points to a potential correlation that should be investigated. Why are we prescribing a drug if the question of carcinogenic potential hasn't been settled. Now, maybe it HAS been settled, like I said, I haven't done a systematic review of the literature, maybe the null finding studies overwhelmingly outnumber the ones that show a correlation, but right now, we (meaning we on the forum discussing this) have a few studies that show a correlation and a few that don't - hardly a settled question.