Failure is a normal part of the scientific process. I see no problem with funding continued failure. Lots of success happened following decades of failure, sometimes just because technology wasn't ready, something which doesn't apply since Excel aside to help calculations, they could have done the exact same work 150 years ago.
I agree, if we don't try because we fear failure then we can't succeed because we gave up before even starting the journey.
As Thomas Edison once said "I have not failed. I've just found 10,000 ways that won't work."
Thats fine if one learns from failures and can try something else to work towards ultimate success.
But when your goal is to deceive then your acting in bad faith. That is what i am opposed to
But here what we have is that no one was following evidence that surprised them. Their hypothesis was wholly fabricated out of their asses and soundly rejected by patients, in large part because it fundamentally contradicted the primary symptom of this disease and the overwhelming experience of patients.
But they continued doing this work for 3 decades, always through the objection of patients, patient organisations and competent experts telling them they were completely out of line, wasting resources and causing mass confusion. Now when someone does that doggedly because of underlying evidence showing something, it's a whole other matter.
I suspect they believe they are heroic trailblazers, their theory failed but instead of accepting it they assumed they were right and manipulated their results to get the outcome they wanted. And when we would not go along with their fraud they turned on us using their credentials to protect themselves and get lies put into clinical practice. Then they blamed victims for not recovering from their harmful treatments.
This is malice even if they deny it to themselves and choose to believe it was for a greater good
But here they recycled already discredited, unfalsifiable hypotheses despite the supposed beneficiaries of this research insisting it was fundamentally misguided and harmful to them. It's not failure that is at fault, it's being completely indifferent to the most basic goal of medicine: to help people suffering from disease.
This is why they should face legal consequences. They didn't fail and learn from it, they failed then covered it up by manipulating data and harmed patients while fooling themselves and other physicians with lies.
Shysters should also face consequences when they harm or defraud others.
They're not pursuing some wild theory of physics. There are consequences to failure in medicine. It may be part of the process, but lessons must be learned from failure. They did not. They continue to reject their failure and that thousands have testified to having been personally harmed. They use political influence to evade accountability and continue promoting harmful treatment that is wasteful and creates a state of hopelessness in patients.
I agree and this is what i oppose, when you have shown your a fraudster or shyster you should not be rewarded for it.
Failure is the least of their numerous faults. Hubris, amorality and being wholly indifferent to the hippocratic oath are much greater faults than having falsified their own hypothesis. Failure is fine in science. Refusing to acknowledge it is the exact opposite of what science is all about.
Yes, they did not act in good faith and harming patients even if done by lying to oneself is simply not acceptable.
Failure is a part of science to learn from, malice and inflicting harm is unethical and should face legal sanction.
In many ways we fundamentally agree, what i am saying is that malice should not be rewarded. If we reward malice then we will get more of it. Thats bad for patients.
We're desperate and brain fogged and emotionally and physically exhausted, and it's possible that may make us more likely to slip into this kind of thinking.
