 |
|
| FORUM | REGISTER | LOGIN | HOAXIPEDIA | TOP 100 APRIL FOOLS | COLLEGE PRANKS | ABOUT THE CURATOR | CONTACT |
| A HISTORY OF HOAXES | HOAX WEBSITES | HOAX PHOTOS | HOAX PHOTO TESTS | GULLIBILITY TESTS | TALL-TALE CREATURES |
About the Museum
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.
The Museum of Hoaxes is dedicated to promoting knowledge about hoaxes. (Click here for opening hours, etc.) On our blog we post about dubious- sounding claims, and whatever else strikes our fancy. The site is also home to the Hoax Photo Database, the Hoax Forum, and the Hoaxipedia.
RUDE ROVERThe Christmas dog with no class! He sings and toots Jingle Bells.
INFLATABLE TREEWho needs the hassle of a real Christmas tree?
FARTING SANTAGo ahead and pull his finger!
Fictitious Patients in Cancer Study
Status: Scientific fraud
A Norwegian doctor, Jon Sudbo, who published an article in the Lancet last year suggesting that aspirin could reduce the risk of oral cancer, has been accused of making up the data in his study. Specifically, he invented almost all of the 900 patients in the study (or at least half of them, by other accounts). The director of the hospital where he worked said: "he faked everything: names, diagnosis, gender, weight, age, drug use." Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet, said: "What I've been told is that he sat in front of his computer and made the whole dataset up and convinced his co-authors it was genuine... It's completely inexplicable." I guess that's one way to avoid having to get consent forms signed.Other journals, including the New England Journal of Medicine, are now finding evidence of fraud in articles they published by Sudbo.
Listed in chronological order. Newest comments at the end.
Page 1 of 1 pages
There are two weird things about this one. One is that he MUST have realized from the very beginning that he would be caught, because his number of (supposedly) relevant cases was so big compared to the size of the real-life data base he claimed to have extracted them from.
The second weird thing is that it lasted long enough to see print at all! After all, he was making somewhat sensational claims, and such research are usually even more heavily scrutinized than other work.
Posted by eovti in Sandefjord, Norway on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 05:44 AMThe second weird thing is that it lasted long enough to see print at all! After all, he was making somewhat sensational claims, and such research are usually even more heavily scrutinized than other work.
Actually the weirdest part is his 13 co-authors not catching onto it. Which means they probably were frauds too, which suggests cheating is more prevalent in medical research than we like to think.
Posted by Eivind in Norway on Tue Jan 24, 2006 at 12:22 PMPage 1 of 1 pages