As I review journals and articles dealing with clinical trials I have found the most glaring problem that, I am sure, no one will address. Namely; quoting data "from the book."

So, what am I talking about? Specifically about researchers, I mean the real researchers, not "re-inventing the wheel" but being satisfied just pulling the data from a "trusted" source and running with it.

Best explanation I can give uses an example. In a clinical trial looking at the impact of ascorbic acid on tumor growth, the researching group, (medical team), noted the milligrams of dose given, adjustment for weight&sex, and then ran the trial.

For those of us in "real research" that was a dismal failure. Worthless waste of even my time reading it let alone the resources running it.  Of course, not a failure if you were running the trial to show the ineffectiveness of Vitamin C in controlling tumor growth. 

Why my perspective? A few reasons:
Ascorbic acid: L-ascorbic acid or d-ascorbic acid? Did any one actually do the analytical work to separate the two? No.

Did anyone in the group even know there was a difference? No.

Did anyone question the methodology used, in other words; did anyone call them out on this glaring error? Yes; I did.

Did that error cause them to review and amend the results? No.

I cannot tell you how many times "pulling data from the book" has made the results void. But no one seems at all concerned about these bold-faced omissions.

When do we go back to being scientists and looking at the data with a critical eye for the glaring mistakes?