Jump to content


Researcher admits to faking research studies

research studies

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
7 replies to this topic

#1 dancedd


    Clear skin!!

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 788
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Joined: 23-April 06



Posted 25 February 2010 - 04:43 AM

Its nice to know when we cite "verifed" research articles that this stuff happens all the time. lol The only big surprise here is that someone admited it...

I wouldn't be surprised if this happens to vitamin/supplement studies too.

Big Pharma researcher admits to faking dozens of research studies for Pfizer, Merck

It's being called the largest research fraud in medical history. Dr. Scott Reuben, a former member of Pfizer's speakers' bureau, has agreed to plead guilty to faking dozens of research studies that were published in medical journals.

Now being reported across the mainstream media is the fact that Dr. Reuben accepted a $75,000 grant from Pfizer to study Celebrex in 2005. His research, which was published in a medical journal, has since been quoted by hundreds of other doctors and researchers as "proof" that Celebrex helped reduce pain during post-surgical recovery. There's only one problem with all this: No patients were ever enrolled in the study!

Dr. Scott Reuben, it turns out, faked the entire study and got it published anyway.

It wasn't the first study faked by Dr. Reuben: He also faked study data on Bextra and Vioxx drugs, reports the Wall Street Journal.

As a result of Dr. Reuben's faked studies, the peer-reviewed medical journal Anesthesia & Analgesia was forced to retract 10 "scientific" papers authored by Reuben. The Day of London reports that 21 articles written by Dr. Reuben that appear in medical journals have apparently been fabricated, too, and must be retracted.

After being caught fabricating research for Big Pharma, Dr. Reuben has reportedly signed a plea agreement that will require him to return $420,000 that he received from drug companies. He also faces up to a 10-year prison sentence and a $250,000 fine.

He was also fired from his job at the Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Mass. after an internal audit there found that Dr. Reuben had been faking research data for 13 years. (http://www.theday.com/article/20100...)

Business as usual in Big Pharma
What's notable about this story is not the fact that a medical researcher faked clinical trials for the pharmaceutical industry. It's not the fact that so-called "scientific" medical journals published his fabricated studies. It's not even the fact that the drug companies paid this quack close to half a million dollars while he kept on pumping out fabricated research.

The real story here is that this is business as usual in the pharmaceutical industry.

Dr. Reuben's actions really aren't that extraordinary. Drug companies bribe researchers and doctors as a routine matter. Medical journals routinely publish false, fraudulent studies. FDA panel members regularly rely on falsified research in making their drug approval decisions, and the mainstream media regularly quotes falsified research in reporting the news.

Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine. The pharmaceutical industry couldn't operate without it, actually. It is falsified research that gives the industry its best marketing claims and strongest FDA approvals. Quacks like Dr Scott Reuben are an important part of the pharmaceutical profit machine because without falsified research, bribery and corruption, the industry would have very little research at all.

Pay special attention to the fact that the Anesthesia & Analgesia medical journal gladly published Dr. Reuben's faked studies even though this journal claims to be a "scientific" medical journal based on peer review. Funny, isn't it, how such a scientific medical journal gladly publishes fraudulent research with data that was simply invented by the study author. Perhaps these medical journals should be moved out of the non-fiction section of university libraries and placed under science fiction.

Remember, too, that all the proponents of pharmaceuticals, vaccines and mammograms ignorantly claim that their conventional medicine is all based on "good science." It's all scientific and trustworthy, they claim, while accusing alternative medicine of being "woo woo" wishful thinking and non-scientific hype. Perhaps they should have a quick look in the mirror and realize it is their own system of quack medicine that's based largely on fraudulent research, bribery and corruption.

source: http://www.naturalne...arch_fraud.html

#2 c'est la vigne

c'est la vigne

    All aboard the nekobus!!!

  • Moderators
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 11,531
    Gallery Images: 14
    Blog Entries: 109
    Likes: 11
About Me
  • Joined: 02-June 08

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:11 AM

I've moved this to the Clinical Trials/Studies board.

#3 uncle buck

uncle buck


  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 956
    Likes: 93
About Me
  • Joined: 22-February 03

Posted 25 February 2010 - 05:15 AM

Fraudulent research, in other words, is widespread in modern medicine.

Fraudulent research IS modern medicine.

Let's see who picks up on this story, I doubt it'll get any air time. This kind of stuff happens all the time if you read naturalnews a lot.

So did he come clean or get found out? If he came clean then well done, I would not send him to jail for that. He's sending out a big message that could save lives. They'd just have got someone else to fake the study anyway.

#4 meat_pirate86



  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 622
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Joined: 13-March 08

Posted 25 February 2010 - 07:35 AM

That is an unfortunate case for many people. However, I don't believe that we should condemn ALL Doctors, Pharma corporations or studies because of Dr. Reuben's laundry list of discretions. Moreover, I believe in a careful trial and error approach to finding out what works best for you. Some medications save lives and greatly improve quality of life, but the best bet is to take only what you need and listen to your body.

#5 joris


    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 1,292
    Likes: 1
About Me
  • Joined: 21-September 09

Posted 25 February 2010 - 02:01 PM

The company should get fines! And jail time. I find bribing as bad or even worse as taking a bribe. That the bribers dont get fines etc... also make it really attractive for companies to do this kind of stuff. Its just a shame that this happens. They should make a come forward now and admit all bribes you took and you get clean, the companies dont rule. In that way they can battle this stuff.

The son of our cleaner does a medical education. For his promotion he did a study. He waited 1 year before hes promotion. After this year he found a few mistakes and he thought differently about some things. However he wasnt allowed to correct this before his promotion because it hadnt been published yet. Thats again something that shows how wrong it is with medical research.

Btw sorry for my bad english.

#6 AutonomousOne1980


    Senior Member

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 3,076
    Likes: 51
About Me
  • Joined: 30-June 06

Posted 25 February 2010 - 03:28 PM

there is good research going on, by real scientists, i can testify to that due to reading studies everyday.

I do not ever read any studies done on drugs though, as i do not see the value of "drugs" or an unnatural interest in manipulating nature.

Whats is crazy about acsking a doctor to do research for a drug is that i never thought doctors were trained to do research?? a doctors job is to identify and treat diseases by applying the drugs that were developed by research scientists. That would have been the first red flag in accepting this phony paper and publishing it in a so called peer reveiwed journal, i would say that the ,supposed, prestigious journal itself is the fraud before the doctor ever was.

As far as i know, a doctor really has no business researching drugs, they identify disease and apply medicine.

Edited by AutonomousOne1980, 25 February 2010 - 03:29 PM.

#7 OmegaisJaded


    Pokemon Queen

  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 1,379
    Likes: 8
About Me
  • Joined: 13-August 10

Posted 14 August 2010 - 01:09 AM

A lot of product research is payed for by the company themselves,so some if not all of the "trials" are bias in their favor. You have to pay attention to HOW a study is conducted,but they don't exactly publish the exact method of testing. It doesn't really count as fraud,though.(except in this case,it truly is fraud!)

It's sad that we can't trust companies and we have to be constantly suspicious of people.

#8 TheMedic



  • Veteran Members
  • Posts & Likes
    Posts: 142
    Likes: 6
About Me
  • Joined: 11-June 11

Posted 15 February 2012 - 12:58 PM

NaturalNews is dogmatic within it self. Modern and alternative, both is full of QUACKS!