dodgy study seems to ignore the placebo effect

I was appalled to read this as it appears to not adhere to basic scientific method; more specifically, it seems to me to ignore the placebo effect:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-schoolkids-psych-meds.html

"...Apparently, the medications are working: More than half of the parents said the drugs are helping their children, according to the report...."

so they seem to think in the the above that the medications appear to be working because what "the parents said" -what? haven't these guys ever heard of the placebo effect?

it gets worse:

".... All of the information on children is obtained through parental (or other guardian) responses. None of the information comes from medical records..."

well, that makes it just about as unscientific as it can get. The only thing they have studied, and unknowingly at that, is something about the psychology of parents and guardians, NOT how effective the medications are.

Although I would guess it would surely be only a pretty small minority of scientists that have both science qualifications and fail to understand basic scientific method, I still really think there should be a special exam just on basic scientific method that ALL scientists must pass before they can be qualified in any field of science to help to put a stop this kind of unscientific study. Most of them would have no problem passing such an exam; the few that don't pass and never pass such an exam should never be given any officially recognized science qualifications or, at the very least, not given an official science degree. Who agrees/disagrees?

Originally posted by humy
I was appalled to read this as it appears to not adhere to basic scientific method; more specifically, it seems to me to ignore the placebo effect:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-schoolkids-psych-meds.html

"...[b]Apparently, the medications are working: More than half of the parents said the drugs are helping their children, according to the repo ...[text shortened]... ualifications or, at the very least, not given an official science degree. Who agrees/disagrees?[/b]

It would be interesting to follow the money. Usually the source is some pharmaceutical company.

Originally posted by sonhouse
It would be interesting to follow the money. Usually the source is some pharmaceutical company.

If it came from some pharmaceutical company and they have given misleading information as a result of financial interest, I think that should be illegal for them to publish and display this misinformation or bias information publicly while presenting it as if it is a scientific report (unless there is already a law against doing that? I honestly don't know if there is ) . There also should be a law stating that exactly who funds each study and exactly what their financial interests are MUST be clearly stated on every publication of a study. That way, if there is a risk of bias for financial reasons, at least the readers of the report are warned about it in the report itself.

Originally posted by humy
I was appalled to read this as it appears to not adhere to basic scientific method; more specifically, it seems to me to ignore the placebo effect:
http://medicalxpress.com/news/2014-04-schoolkids-psych-meds.html

"...[b]Apparently, the medications are working: More than half of the parents said the drugs are helping their children, according to the repo ...[text shortened]... ualifications or, at the very least, not given an official science degree. Who agrees/disagrees?[/b]

It's not a scientific paper, it's a government report on the statistics of medical use among
children, and whether or not it seems to have a positive effect. What am I missing? 😕

Originally posted by C Hess
It's not a scientific paper, it's a government report on the statistics of medical use among
children, and whether or not it seems to have a positive effect. What am I missing? 😕

I wonder then if the government categorizes the placebo effect as a "positive" effect?