Not much wonder it gets as unethical and crude as the Amgen GDNF scandal. Sounds like they learn how to get away with science fraud and lies and dishonesty right from college days.

“11 of the 37 trials they examined showed major discrepancies in the primary outcomes stated in the protocols and the published studies.”
Translation: they threw away the true results of their scientific research and typed up a batch of lies that they thought they could sell on the marketplace or trade for comfortable tenure.

“Just 45% of the published trials were properly registered” So more than half have something to hide. Or keeping it all themselves. Or too lazy to bother.

“The others listed vague primary outcomes, or none at all.”
They have something to hide in the primary outcomes. Science fraud.

“But even within those registered properly, 31% switched the primary outcome. In some cases, the article's primary outcome was the secondary outcome in the registry, or not listed in the registry at all; in others, the registered primary outcome was not included in the article.”
Okay, now read that last paragraph over about ten times, photocopy it, and hand it out in your neurologist’s waiting room; better still, mail it to one of the many Parkinson’s associations and find out which ones put it in their newsletters. Read that again. This is medical research we are talking about. This is junior Amgen-land. Seems Amgen is right to think it is the routine procedure. In this science research to defeat disease, supported by taxpayers’ dollars and generous donors and high prices of drugs, “31% SWITCHED THE PRIMARY OUTCOME”.

Excuse me? Excuse me? You do medical research and you don’t like the results so you switch the primary outcome? Just who the “f…” do you think you are? We are getting beyond science fraud here; we seem to be wandering into blatently criminal territory.

“sometimes an original outcome measure will fail to show an effect of a treatment, so the trial sponsors publish the trial using another measure”
Well now there’s a good medical idea. Results no good? What the hell, stick in some other set of numbers.

“if there are [such] biases, we could get the answer wrong," Parker said. "People could really suffer." No kidding, Sherlock? Patients might suffer if the medical researchers deliberately hide some information and falsify the rest? Just an ignorant question from a whining peasant: Why aren’t some of these people in jail? Why aren’t the perps named? Why can’t we, the patients, have the list of the 31% of scientists who switched the primary outcome because the true results were not profitable? Name them! Name the studies the perps falsified! We get arrested DUI, our picture goes in the local newpaper; these perps lie about life-and-death information, and no one is even allowed to know who they are.