Chiro.org - Chiropractic Resource Organization.     Support Chiropractic Research!

irresponsible reporting

Home/Tag: irresponsible reporting

Ringing in the New Year the NIH way.

By |December 23, 2009|NIH|

Just ran across this posting from 12/22/2009. In light of all the fraud being found in articles published in refereed journals (see my posting tagged with “irresponsible reporting“), this may be good news for our patients! With so much of today’s research being funded by the NIH, this change in policy would be a welcomed departure from their current policy of leaving the issue up to the funded institution. You can read more on this issue from The-Scientist.com’s blog.

The announcement came from Dr. Francis Collins, Dir. of the National Institutes of Health (NIH)  in an interview aired by C-SPAN on their show, “Newsmakers”. You can watch the entire interview on C-SPAN.org

“Fake papers news” continue to surface.

By |June 12, 2009|Ethics|

We here at Chiro.org take great pride in providing current, updated and accurate information for chiropractors. In this the latest of my posts about fake journal articles being uncovered, I provide further evidence that what you see, not only on the web but also in “scientific” journals,  my not be all it is presented to be. Great care is an absolute MUST when obtaining information, period, no matter what the source of that information! So to borrow a phase from the only TV Series, Hill Street Blues, “Hey! Hey! Hey! Be careful out there!”

Here at 2 more posts from The Scientist blog reporting, yet more, fake journal news:

Editors quit after fake paper flap

OA publisher accepts fake paper

One Was Not Enough?

By |May 8, 2009|Ethics, Journals, Research|

The “Scientist” magazine blog posted a follow up on a report last week of a division of a ‘fake journal’. Yesterday a follow up post was made stating that the reported journal was not the only one of its type, which bore the imprint of Elsevier’s Excerpta Medica. The follow up post reported there were a total of 6 journals of the type mentioned in the original report. Elsevier issued a statement, which read impart…

“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures,” said Michael Hansen, CEO of Elsevier’s Health Sciences Division, in a statement issued by the company. “This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”

The full posting can be read here;

http://www.the-scientist.com/blog/display/55679/

Elsevier Published Apparently Fake Journal for Merck

By |May 3, 2009|Uncategorized|

The Scientist‘s blog posted a very interesting article on April 30th.

The Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine has been reported as nothing more than an advertising and marketing tool for Fosamax and Vioxx. The journal was published from 2003-2004 by Exerpta Medica which is a division of Elsevier, resembled a peer-reviewed journal (complete with editorial board)  and was paid for by Merck, the maker of both drugs. Nearly all of the advertising contained in the issues was dedicated to the two drugs and the papers published were “throwaways” which had been rejected by peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Click here to read more!

The Problem with Placebos

By |March 27, 2009|News, Research|

The Problem with Placebos

The Chiro.Org Blog


Numerous clinical trials that explored the effect of spinal adjusting (or manipulation, aka SMT) on various conditions have concluded that adjusting had no effect, because SMT and the placebo (or “sham” adjustment) had similar beneficial results.

What these studies failed to emphasize was that the sham manipulation and the specific adjustment both demonstrated clinical benefits, compared with no care or standard medical management.

The Problem with Placebos Page reviews many articles which discuss the problems with developing a truly neutral sham adjustment, and roundly criticizes those studies which manipulate that data to appear as if SMT did not provide clinical benefit.