Due to a whistleblower, we are now aware of research that was published in the European Journal of Neurology, but which was never done. It was supposedly carried out at the University of Queensland.
Even more shocking is that it was supposedly clinically based research on Parkinson’s disease with a direct donation apparently from Parkinson’s Australia. There were claims that the new technology under study (repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation) had the potential to revolutionise the way neurological speech and language disorders are treated. Why does it take a whistle blower for this to emerge?
While just recovering, I noted some new research suggesting that the size of men’s testicles relates to how well they look after infants – the smaller the testicles the better. The papers have had a field day with it. But really – are we going to get women measuring the size of potential husbands with testiculometers? And is 55 people in the study really enough to cover all possible variables here? And in which direction does the size/husbandry relationship suggest?– maybe good husbandry shrinks them?
Sometimes I think the research industry needs a form of managed care.
– David Butler
All comments invited.