The Doctor who Deceived Cancer Patients for Fame

[@Sciencerely]

To try everything Brilliant has to offer-free-for a full 30 days, visit brilliant.org/Sciencerely. The first 200 of you will get 20% off Brilliant’s annual premium subscription.

[@tainkirrahe]

I do not understand how people like this don't think they'll be caught as soon as other scientists try to replicate their falsified results??

[@carolinedelreal9076]

Because 98% of research isn’t important enough for anyone to check.

[@mayaraalves2038]

@@carolinedelreal9076 But the other 2% become a general replication, when doctors and clinic around the world will agree with it because "it have a research..."

[@evo2542]

Simple. They don't consider if they get caught. They just see what they get if they get away with it. They are narcissistic enough to think they can pull the wool over other people.

[@Arri7979]

I think the people that do this know they'll eventually get caught, but they do it because it could take years or even decades for them to get caught. Research studies take years to replicate, so within that time, they could go on to do other research or develop other projects. Those additional projects can give their name more validity, more weight, and over time get them more recognition in their field. By the time someone publishes a paper that debunks their research, they could just say, "The research was sound for the time and circumstances" or, "I wasn't aware of any false information in my study" (this was said in the video) and they could possibly get away with it because they have other credible sources under their belt to still make them looked esteemed. In the video, he got caught quickly because he faked other credentials that could be easily debunked, his Rhodes Scholarship lie, so people started digging into his past more and found more inconsistencies.

[@SmileyxKyley]

I think people are replicating studies less frequently nowadays, because replications don’t get published anymore. Replicating a study used to be seen as respectable and important work (as it should be). Now it’s seen as “not good enough” for publication.

[@MultiSciGeek]

There's something so weird about scientists being dishonest. Even worse is them not catching people that are dishonest, when all the data and all should be transparent.

[@litrim1285]

I remember learning about this back in middle school. It was for vacation HW from my 6th Grade science teacher.

[@sanjaisrao484]

Please upload more medical scams like this, it's so interesting and it's also important to know. Thanks

[@sophiaisabelle027]

Deception and lies are fatal weapons against humanity. Somehow the fame really got into his head. He can no longer process everything in a more sensible and logical way, which is a bit unusual for a medical professional like him.

[@coolspider295]

The explanation of cross-validation in this video was botched and is inaccurate. You always split your data into training and development splits, even if you aren't using cross-validation. Cross-validation is when you split your data, train a model, evaluate, then repeat the process with different splits. This lets you get results for your entire dataset, not just a small slice.

[@Eirexeyes]

What a piece of work. I hope they throw the book at him for this blatant scam. I hope they do go hard on him. My mother died of cancer, so hearing there was a miracle drug I would have loved to hear but then realising that it was all fake would make the pain of mother having cancer even worse. I really do hope they do go hard on him. The maximum penalty he should get...

[@demonking86420]

I lost aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews to forms of cancer, the notion that something like that can hoodwink someone with a disease that doesn't really have a cure, is bloody scummy at the least

[@haloforgeguy453]

Is there any evidence that he just did not cross validate correctly? Since how would he expect this to not fail in actual trials? I should read some of the articles myself.

[@chesthoIe]

If you were born in the 1800s, everyone was talking about finding a cure for fever. I think our quest for a cure for cancer is of a similar ilk.

[@riverdeep399]

I think it's worse than that. Our own environments and diets can contribute towards cancer, so it will never fully be cured.

[@demonking86420]

"they aimed to develop a tool that can identify--" HOLD UP Like some magic box... that you plug your DNA in... to get like-- This sounds like Theranos

[@BlisaBLisa]

idk this one seems more doable? like you could really make this or something similar. if i understood correctly he was basically trying to make a program that would do what human scientists do but better, basically looking at a cancer cell sample (like a human would) and using all the data it has to pick the best treatment for it. theranos couldnt have worked because it was physically impossible, you cant detect a lot of these diseases she claimed it could from just a drop of blood, you need to take more blood for that. and it was mechanically just a mess and dangerous. but this thing kinda just seems like a computer.

[@demonking86420]

@@BlisaBLisa possibly but it's like comparing the odds of a supernova shockwave destroying the Earth to the odds of a rogue black hole destroying the Earth

[@BlisaBLisa]

@@demonking86420 i have next to no understanding of this tech or medicine or coding lol im basing this assumption off what i understood from the vid. why would it not work?

[@owouwu2859]

Theranos : The prequel

[@mehrdokhtp]

Do a video on Francesca Gino, the Harvard Prof that recently got busted

[@ZERONECODE]

he's evil

[@coolspider295]

He had a fake degree from India too

[@academicpresentations6062]

@@coolspider295 CMC Vellore is fake? No, who told you.

[@theshillonggirl]

2006 was year of scam science!

[@aliarminsalehi9131]

This is what happens when "clueless" coders play doctor.

[@Irfan-pr1lu]

💘💘💘