When a new drug gets tested, the results of the trials should be published for the rest of the medical world -- except much of the time, negative or inconclusive findings go unreported, leaving doctors and researchers in the dark. In this impassioned talk, Ben Goldacre explains why these unreported instances of negative data are especially misleading and dangerous.
TEDTalks is a daily video podcast of the best talks and performances from the TED Conference, where the world's leading thinkers and doers give the talk of their lives in 18 minutes (or less). Look for talks on Technology, Entertainment and Design -- plus science, business, global issues, the arts and much more.
Find closed captions and translated subtitles in many languages at http://www.ted.com/translate
Follow TED news on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/tednews
Like TED on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TED
Subscribe to our channel: http://www.youtube.com/user/TEDtalksDirector
This is so very important! Replication or REPEATABILITY is one of the cornerstones of science. I’m a PhD student in geoscience/engineering and I find it so frustrating when I read papers and am not able to replicate even elementary results in the lab. Unfortunately, full scale replication is a very technically complex, time consuming, and expensive process. It is going to be to be impossible to do replication without heavy incentives. And currently incentives are basically a BIG ZERO! All of the emphasis is on novelty! We need to fix this across the board. Not just in medicine.
(And no, this doesn’t excuse people for being anti-science! Plenty of great work out there.)
There is great evidence that modern medicine extends lives and the quality of life. The problem with it is that along the way there is a significant group that isn't helped or even hurt.
Any physician scientist knows that any single study (even one with a large sample size) proves nothing. Decades of study results have sometimes shown conflicting results. Many study designs are extremely flawed. Very few studies are exactly looking at the exactly the same things. 'Similar' things isn't the same as 'exact things'.
The amount of data that medical studies produce each year is more than incomprehensible. Condemning physicians, science or drug companies because it isn't perfect is the same as telling them that they are causing a net negative impact on people's health. We know that is not true.
Thank you, Sir, for exposing the FDA and Pharmaceutical Industries for the frauds they are, the efficacy and ethical violations, and the lie that beats throughout the center of their Corporate and Federal Heartless Policies. Heartless. Profit above people, and yet they are known for what and who they are. It's not okay to walk over you and trample your patients, and in consideration of recent doctor suicides? Well, this pervasive bias is a massive problem. Call them out..... and yet? Now, it's an even bigger problem with suicided doctors yes? It's absolutely terrifying. I appreciate your good conscience and honest disposition, but take care to protect yourself. More than one-hundred doctors are suicided now from these monsters, and we're free to speculate, perhaps it's coincidence, but I think not.
I completely agree with speaker Ben Goldacre and his informational talk on the issue of publication bias. Publication bias can be especially dangerous when viewed through the lens of medical ethics.
When doctors look at prescribing medications, especially medications that are new to the market, most of them strive to be as informed as possible about the medication’s effectiveness, benefits, and risks. They operate under the premise of non-maleficence - to “do-no-harm” – and yet despite their best efforts, if the information that they need is not published, they will unintentionally have a skewed view of the medication they prescribe. This is worrying considering that the trials with negative results that do not get published are likely to be the most transparent and informational resource about the medication’s negative side effects. Even in the tragic situation that the medication’s risky benefits outweigh all the negative side effects, doctors are ill-equipped to monitor their patients for the appropriate warning signs of any serious complications, all because these journals favor positive results over negative.
Publication bias also makes it impossible for doctors to protect a patient’s autonomy. Doctors strive to abide by the ethical principle of autonomy, where it is their duty to provide each patient with the best chance of making well-informed decisions about their health care. However, if accurate, transparent information is not available to inform a doctor of a medication’s risks and side effects, they in turn cannot give their patients a clear, well-informed choice either.
While I understand the excitement of positive test results and the forward momentum of innovation they provide to the scientific community, our progress is meaningless if we ever let our strive for discovery outpace our sense of humanity.
Dr. Ben Goldacre’s presentation of the current fraud in the world of prescription drugs via evidence based medicine brings up a very interesting ethical dilemma in regards to beneficence, and physician’s recommendations of medication to patients. When deciding on the best prescription medication for a patient, physicians utilize published studies, with both positive and negative results, to determine the safety and effectiveness of that drug. Depending on those findings, some medications are seen as dangerous or ineffective and subsequently avoided, or appreciated for their affects and prescribed. However, Dr. Goldacre shed light on the systematic flaw that is present in this system, misleading both doctors and patients alike. His argument that “ About ½ of trials go missing and positive findings are twice more likely to be published” was astounding as this system is supposed to be the “go to” for health care. A physician’s role is to do no harm, and that includes knowing all the side effects of medicine they prescribe, something that is impossible to know if they do not have access to all of the information. Just as it is seen unethical for drug companies to give gifts to physicians, since there is evidence that gifts from drug companies strengthen physician's recommendation of that product, and impairing objectivity-so is the “publication-bias” that Dr. Goldacre explains is occuring every day. If a physician can’t trust the information they are being given, due to the fact that negative studies are often “cherry-picked” out, leaving only a small percentage of original information, then a physician cannot give the best care and truly “do no harm” if they aren’t aware of the possible harm their prescription could be doing to their patient. Dr. Goldacre mentioned that over 100,000 Americans died from the antiarrhythmic agent Lorcainide, due to studies depicting the negative results of the original trial were never published. In that study, all 5 patients given the drug died, and 4/5 given the placebo also died-causing the drug to be pulled from the shelves due to its dangerous effects. However, since the study was never published, years later several drug companies made a similar drug since they had no negative results influencing this decision, and over 100,000 people died before the new studies could be published. Patients trust that their doctors have their best interest at heart, and that the medication they are being prescribed is both effective and safe. This parallels the ethical notion of beneficence-the moral imperative act for the benefit of others. Beneficence is something that all doctors swear to uphold in regards to their patients, and includes recommending treatment options and medications that would benefit the patient, not harm them. If the studies being used by physician’s to determine the “level” of beneficence of a particular drug, are misleading and fraudulent due to withholding and not publishing a majority of the negative results regarding that drug, then this ethical responsibility is being both breached and prevented.
Dr. Goldacre brings up a very important point in the context of evidence based medicine. His whole presentation begs the question “if we are cherry-picking evidence is any medicine actually evidence based?” This alone is a frightening idea however, I was struck by the ethical implications of the lack of trial publishing. Particularly, I feel this interferes with the ethical topic of informed consent. The American Medical Association (https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/informed-consent) states that informed consent a caregiver disclosing the benefits, risks, likely consequences, and alternative treatment options. The patient must understand everything and then volunteer to undergo the treatment. In a nutshell, this protects the patient from a caregiver willfully hiding information from them to promote the caregiver’s own agenda. By withholding negative drug trial information an argument can be made that all medications have been taken without informed consent. A cornerstone of informed consent is making sure the patient is told and understands the risks of a treatment. If the medical community as a whole are not being told or understanding the risks of a treatment, they cannot pass that along to patients. I am in no way trying to imply that medical professionals are constantly working unethically. On the contrary, individuals are working as well as they can in the scope of our knowledge. However, this possible baseline violation of informed consent raises uncomfortable questions about the ethics of healthcare.
Dr. Goldacre eloquently explains the disturbing reality that the studies we rely on in medicine are much less based in evidence than we might think. Publication bias doesn’t just lead to an exaggeration of the benefits of a drug, it leads to mortality, as Dr. Goldacre highlights with the staggering 100,000 deaths that could have been prevented if death rates for lorcainide trials were accurately reported. It’s hard to believe that this bias is not common knowledge, and that many patients, family members, and caretakers must make decisions about their health and lives with these gaps in information that not even a trusted physician can bridge. I believe the most startling problem that publication bias of human clinical trials introduces is the muddling of informed consent. For those who may not know, informed consent requires a physician to disclose all of the expected benefits, risks, likely outcomes, and alternative options for a patient before prescribing a treatment or performing a procedure. Dr. Goldacre used the example 37 of 38 FDA trials showing positive results for an antidepressant being accessible while only 3 of 37 negative results were accessible, deliberately misleading physicians who act as the conduit between the drug and the patient in favor of marketing. If the physician is informed of nearly all the benefits and less than 10% negative outcomes that occurred during trials, can they truly obtain informed consent from their patients? Because the published records are all that any other physician or patient can access, the prescribing physician is technically operating within the standards of disclosure; so technically yes. However, any reasonable physician or patient would want to put the evidence they have into context, and they would want to know how publication bias can affect care. Thus, it is a moral obligation for the physician to become aware of this pervasive research misconduct, as Dr. Goldacre called it, and be able to communicate this reality to their patients while still seeking to provide the best possible individualized care with the evidence-based information they do have. It must also be the physician’s responsibility to fight to change these standards as part of their duty to protect their patient’s right to being fully informed in any way they can, starting perhaps by signing a petition as suggested in this video. Not to mention the obligation to combat this injustice must extend to all of the physicians-scientists, researchers, pharmacists, the FDA, journals, and anyone who could potentially interfere with such foundational ethical principles.
The doctors don't know the antidepressants and ADHD drugs create the bipolar symptoms, which is why a scientific journalist had to point out these iatrogenic pathways that led to America's doctor created, in other words completely iatrogenic, not genetic, "childhood bipolar epidemic."
Although, the doctors did used to know the antidepressants created the bipolar symptoms, because the DSM-IV-TR does state, "Note: Manic-like episodes that are clearly caused by somatic antidepressant treatment (e.g., medication, electroconvulsive therapy, light therapy) should not count toward a diagnosis of Bipolar I Disorder." But this medical wisdom was taken out of the DSM5.
And the doctors claim to be ignorant of the fact that the antidepressants and antipsychotics can make people "mad as a hatter," psychotic, and filled with hallucinations. Despite the fact the doctors were all taught about antidepressant and/or antipsychotic induced anticholinergic toxidrome in med school.
The schizophrenia treatments, the antipsychotics (aka neuroleptics), can create - not just the positive symptoms, like psychosis, of schizophrenia via anticholinergic toxidrome. But they can also create the negative symptoms of schizophrenia, via neuroleptic induced deficit syndrome.
But since neither of these medically known psychiatric drug induced syndrome/toxidrome are listed in the psychiatrists' DSM billing code "bible," the doctors claim ignorance of these medically known, psychiatric drug induced illnesses. And they always get misdiagnosed as one of the "invalid" DSM billing code stigmatizations.
In other words, both bipolar and schizophrenia are illnesses that are created with the psychiatric drugs, they are not real diseases with a genetic etiology, as the psychiatrists incorrectly assumed. Let's hope the doctors some day soon learn this.
I'd like to see an end be put to modern day America's on going psychiatric holocaust, primarily of our society's weakest members, our child abuse survivors, according to the medical literature.
Let's hope the psychiatrists and other doctors get out of the - cover up rape of children by turning millions of child abuse survivors into the mentally ill with the psychiatric drugs - business soon, since such a business is actually illegal. And it also aids, abets, and empowers the luciferian pedophiles, which is a stupid thing to do.
Fix is easy to find, but until money is at stake, via HUGE fines for withholding results, it simply won't happen.
1: register BEFORE you start the trial or no publication possible.
2: Conduct study
3: if you do not publish the result, a fine so huge that it'll make refusing to publish the result a death sentence for the company.
Sadly, this will never happen unless a LOT of pressure is put on politicians that are in the pocked of large pharmaceuticals. I'm not holding my breath.
I really think this problem transcends the medical field and is the most damaging variant in the political sphere, as well as every other aspect of the documented studies that supposedly present the working knowledge we base our understandings on.
Seeing as how the majority of us aren't even capable of amounting said working knowledge on our own, the publishing of misleading data will never be remedied as long as self serving bias's go unchecked.
wow, I was addicted to valium about 8 months ago (when I took my last pill) but I was addicted for about 5 months, and I know ppl have been addicted for way longer, but what a hellish five months it was!! it was actually CBD oil which weened me off of the benzo's, so thankful for it!!
I think we should invent a t- shirt that
Says “ I ♥️data dorks “
And make them available to general public. Maybe we could advertise his book on the bottom - bad science.
We need to promote morals and integrity in our Doctor all over the world and this might be a good place to start .
This is just one part of the problem. There are so many ways trials themselves can be manipulated that will still lead to bad science even if we can see all trials. So many trials are also just poorly conducted, while scientists are considered smart it seems like most are not smart enough to make sure they design trials in a way where the results actually mean something. Then again, might also be on purpose so they can get grant money and collect the big pharma paycheck in some instances.
Add to that the limited scope of how we are researching many drugs. The vast majority of studies for antidepressants for instance only look at if there is an improvement in mood within 3-6 week. Are we that short-sighted? What doctor would prescribe something that makes someone feel better for a few weeks at a huge risk of long-term and short-term damage?
I feel like 99% of doctors are just not using their brain at all.
Really focus on understanding how the brain works and be aware of the things we don't know yet, so you can evaluate for yourself if the way we use drugs to treat mental health makes sense (it does not). Make an effort to connect with people who have gone through Psychiatric emergencies and come out the other end. They can usually teach you much more than your formal education when it comes to how to actually help your patients. Good resources to look into are Human Givens (especially their insights into Psychosis) and Dr. Peter Breggins who is a very empathic and smart Psychiatrist who understands how to help people. Also research Open Dialogue from Finland (where they almost entirely eradicated Schizophrenia in some places) and Soteria houses. Psychiatry as a whole is harming our society in indescribable ways, but if you become a critical Psychiatrist who does not allow yourself to get brainwashed by the doctrine, you have an incredible opportunity to change things for the better. When it comes to research, be incredibly, incredibly skeptical. Know the source, assume the worst. Use your own logical brain to make judgments about, whether a trial that shows if a drug "helps" reduce symptoms for 3-6 weeks makes sense ... the goal is to truly make people better long-term. Do your own research into the harmful effects of the drugs you prescribe. There are a lot of animal studies on this that show the direct brain damage they cause. Seek out the stories of people who successfully quit their meds. Practically all of them still feel the negative effects, this is the real long-term damage that is difficult to show in studies. Mad in America has a lot of those reports. I hope you will use your life to do good and not be influenced by your education and destroy lives without even realizing it. All the best to you!
The problem with medicine in the world if people have to pay their bills the thesis their grants from going to college so they keep their mouth shut and let the bad stuff go on instead of having integrity and dignity it's all about money My Worship doctor's letter that donate their time to give help for nothing humanity is a disgraced what's going on today it's all about taxes money doesn't matter about people's lives.
Ben Goldacre makes reference to the biotech company Amgen who had a team of about 100 scientists over 10 years trying to reproduce the findings of 53 “landmark” articles in cancer research published by reputable labs in top journals. They were only able to reproduce 6 of those studies, about 11%!
How many cancer treatments and drugs being used today are based on the 89% of studies that have no foundation in science?
Medicine like all business is in it for the money. Drug companies drive medical protocols. Those protocols push drugs. Governments need to push back and do their own research where drugs are suspected of offering minimal positive effect or negative effects. Drugs only treat symptoms, there maybe other options that treat causes that would be more effective.
Thankfully some of us are intelligent enough not to just trust and accept the supposed complete wisdom of doctors in every situation. Lol, so I can be prescribed one of several drugs for the rest of my life or if the first one I choose doesn't work "enough" or causes unacceptable side effects then I can rotate between the others until I eventually end on the most effective and most dangerous drug that just kills people once in a while but is otherwise great. Oh, and it'll all only cost tax payers or insurance companies (many other patients premiums) a few million dollars over my life. No thanks. Sometimes patients are smart and rebellious enough to study it all for themselves and mitigate chronic disease affectivally alternatively.
Governments should do the testing. Drug companies should pay for it. They might farm out the work. If a testing company is caught cheating it gets a fine and no more contracts. putting it out of business.
I want to see an explanation to why doctors prescribe overdoses when they don't know how to help you and you have been on about 50% of all medication. I mean Michel Jackson was overdosed and he died from it. I got overdosed and found out so I stopped in time. Monty oum got overdosed and died. How many more need to get overdosed before someone does something to stop this trend. Doctors either overdose you or refer you when they don't have a way to help you, or what to prescribe you.
Everyone knows they do not want you to know Dexedrine and klonopin and medical marijuana is the BEST and only real medication that can be prescribed.
Not everyone needs or should have drugs though. Maybe most people should not. If doctors write prescriptions, it has to be for dexedrine, benzodiazapines, or medical marijuana to treat depression, anxiety, adhd, or especially bipolar.
Veritasium has a video called "Is Most Published Research Wrong?" that does a much better job at describing all the various reasons for publication bias. This video takes slightly longer to say much less. Both these videos however, suffer from a huge degree of pessimism. Neither video properly accounts for successes. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Anyone who claims their research is significant in a very impactful way will certainly have their experiments repeated. It's true most research isn't repeated, but that probably means most of the research isn't actually of much importance whether it's true or not. Secondly, scientific journals do a very good job at picking out the statistically significant studies that might actually be of great importance because they have a motive to do so. I think it's really the media to blame in that they tear through the titles of studies as fast as possible looking for something to turn into a catchy headline. In the same way, I think TED is somewhat guilty of this by hiring this presenter. Skepticism is good, but too much of it is equally bad as having none.
Ben pointed out what some may say the obvious. Its all down to incentives. If we live in a capitalist system where profit is the ultimate goal, how can anyone expect a different outcome (in medicine or any other field)? Let's be honest and admit we'd all do the same if we were chairing the FDA, SEC, CDC, FED or any other supervising institution. Not saying communism or socialism is the answer .. but this is the other side of capitalism we have to live with
You preach about misleading but you my friend are just as guilty. 1) I’m a doctor and I’m well aware of publication bias, especially regarding antidepressants. 2.) there are times when side effect profile is small that I’ll consider a medicine knowing the research behind it because it is worth the possibility of improvement for the patient due to the placebo effect alone. 3.) unpublished studies aren’t necessarily good studies. Maybe they weren’t published because they had a small population, poor study design, etc.
Misleading research is determined to provide sound statistical work that they choose problems easy to analyse, but a profound triviality.Orthodox western medicine not only won't cure you but may leave worse off than you were before.In fact, these days scientific medicine itself is responsible for a good percentage of diseases.With all the fancy chemicals and computerised testing equipment we have, chronic depression, asthma, diabetes cancer virtually all degenerative disease is known to mankind are thriving, and medicine hasn't affected their incidence one tiny bit.The common cold is not caught; is created with the feet under the dinner table, and no other way.The hope of humanity lies in the prevention of degenerative and mental diseases, not in the care of their symptoms.
We think SSRIs work by increasing the levels of serotonin in your brain, which then causes the number of receptors for serotonin (higher than normal in depression) to downregulate/lower. This means that for the first two weeks, before the receptor numbers reduce, there is lots of serotonin acting at the receptors which commonly causes an increase in feelings of anxiety, which can increase suicide risk, and very very uncommonly psychosis. Like most other drugs, SSRIs don't work for everybody, but they can be good in the right people.
As soon as I told the doc how I feel most days they instantly prescribed me with an SSRI but as I later found out, if I start taking SSRI's I could be even more at risk of suicide, psychosis, dangrous compulsiveness etc than I was before I took anything. It makes me feel like I'm out of options.
As long as scientific validation is the gold standard for stimulating a revenue stream, there will be "fake science". Greedy bastards will do whatever it takes in order to get more. Vaccines are a prime example.
The drug companies get to select the studies they present to the FDA for drug approval and they regularly set aside negative studies and this is how they get their drugs approved and this is the foundation on which so-called evidence is based. It is fraud and no better than numerous groups within alternative medicine which those in mainstream medicine condemn.
Excellent Video! Sorry for butting in, I would appreciate your thoughts. Have you thought about - Elijahzan Ailment Solution Review (Sure I saw it on Google)? It is a great one off guide for learning how to get rid of prescription medication without the headache. Ive heard some unbelievable things about it and my friend got astronomical success with it.
There needs to be better regulation regarding publication of both positive and negative studies. The reason more positive results get published is because drug companies benefit from doctors prescribing their drugs. The downfall of this is doctors prescribe drugs that they think will help patients but in reality they don't know the full story. Not only is this
irresponsible on the behalf of the drug companies but it's also very unethical. Are the drug companies going to take responsibility for falsely
portraying the benefits of these drugs? Both sides of the story need
to be published so that doctors can make the most educated decisions when prescribing medication for patients. Doctors put the patients first but if drug companies are only concerned about profits and pay off the researchers who found negative results it makes it very hard for the doctors to prescribe a beneficial drug. There need to be strict guidelines in place and if they're not followed there need to be serious consequences. This will be the only way to allow the public access to the whole story.
Goldacre makes very valid points - which are to do with the consequences of conflicts of interests, and the negative consequences for patients. However, there is a much more serious problem at the moment. The bulk of the medical profession (along with the public) still believes that you can treat chronic diseases by changing the bio chemisrty of the body. I think drugs & surgery have an amazing influence on positive outcomes in many accute situations, but not in chronic illnesses that are a result of poor nutrition and lifestyle - the bulk of sickness today is due to this. Eating a varied whole plant based diet, low fat, low salt - along with strength/cardio/flexibility training and meditation along with a healthy social life will eliminate much of the chronic disease that we have today. Trying to fix these diseases by changing the bio chemistry using drugs is quackery at its worst.
+O N I S M Well explained. I agree although I believe that profit corrupts things as important as healthcare and needs to be somehow divorced from it. It should perhaps be left to non profit organizations to come up with drugs and pharmaceutical companies just sell them on. I have seen reports that research in antibiotics has stagnated partly because of economics (https://www.businessinsider.com/major-pharmaceutical-companies-dropping-antibiotic-projects-superbugs-2018-7). A not-for-profit entity will not have such problems as long as it is hopefully funded by governments.
+mo om A huge number of drugs are substances that people have used for thousands of years, but isolated into the effective compound. Aspirin is a substance from willow bark, which has historically been used to treat pain, inflammation, and fever. Morphine is the same compound found in poppy seeds. Natural medicines that are proven to work are medicine, not alternative medicine. These substances are often isolated due to a variety of problems with herbal treatments.
One such problem is that the amount of the active compounds in herbal treatments changes seasonally with the growth of the plant - this makes it hard to control how much of the active substance you're getting. Another is that there are a variety of other chemicals in the herbal substance that may lead to herbal substances having more side effects, which can range from anything from nausea to toxic effects. Some herbal supplements have also been found to be contaminated with other drugs, such as aspirin or steroids, pesticides, and heavy metals such as lead (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/feb/06/herbal-medicines-can-have-dangerous-side-effects-research-reveals).
So, overall: there is no regulatory body to ensure that herbal medications a) contain what they claim to contain and in stable amounts; b) are free from other contaminants or additives; c) give information about possible toxicity, side effects, and how to deal with them. This is making the assumption that the compounds in the herb are efficacious at all - while some certainly are, I'm just as sure that there are others which may not be.
I'm very critical of what Big Pharma says - particularly in the US market which allows companies to charge pretty much whatever they want for a lot of drugs. I believe all our viewpoints should be based on evidence which is as objective and stringent as possible. This TED talk does not prove that the science itself is bad - it's the attitude towards reporting the science that is flawed at the moment. The tendency to not report negative results isn't something that's just seen in pharmaceutical research, and it's not something that's inherently tied to corporations. This post is a pretty good overview of why papers tend to not publish negative results: https://www.editage.com/insights/why-are-negative-results-rarely-published. There are a number of research papers that are working to combat this - this talk is going on 7 years old, and in that time a lot of stuff has happened.
I understand that it can feel demeaning and rude when people call each other names and appear to dismiss things out of hand. I implore you to also understand how people with chronic illnesses, for whom herbal supplements and lifestyle modifications are ineffective, might feel upset and angry at people who dismiss and undermine the trust in the drugs that keep them alive.
+O N I S M I am all for what works be it herb or "chemicals". There is no point mocking people (as was done by the previous commenter) because they prefer certain types of medications. People have lived for thousands of years and used those treatments that have now been relegated to "alternative forms of medication". There is a wealth of knowledge on this type of medication and people are probably better off looking into these again rather relying on profit-hungry corporates who lie, cheat and conceal in order to get a drug to market without worrying about how people are affected.
I know this would be termed as "anecdotal" but I haven't been to hospital or taken any drug for the last five years. All I had to do was be more conscious of what went into my body and tried to stay fit. The few times I got a little sick, I just used some local herbs and I got well.
What I have seen people do is just bash alternative medicine and call people names. That is totally unnecessary. So much for your "evidence based medicine". We can see right through the bad science now. I have no problem taking any medicine as long as it would work. Am just not sure I can trust corporates with my health or the health of my family. Not after watching this anyway.
+mo om without these "chemicals" (read: naturally derived and then refined substances that act on pre-existing structures within the body in the same way as endogenous structures) many people would die or have their quality of life drastically reduced. Many people DO die because of lack of access to medical care. Please learn about how medicines work before coming for them lmao
+mo om they can't cure type 1 diabetes but they can help manage the chronic condition. They can aid in the weight loss and reversal of insulin sensitivity that can cure type 2 diabetes if caught early enough.
All one needs is to study 'German New Medicine' (GNM) to become aware how our emotions lie at the basis of 'dis-ease' (especially prolonged negative emotions). This in combination of realizing the big influence of 'placebo' and 'nocebo' effects (both which play a major part in all medical treatments, traditional as well as so called 'alternative' ones). Of course GNM is on the black list of 'modern medicine' (since 1981) and also the media has a strong bias towards negative publicity regarding it. This is not the place to dive into all this and I only wanna show people a way out of the 'medical impasse' (modern medicine has no idea about the real cause of disease, or so they pretend - doctors are trained monkeys, with all respect to their good intentions, I'm sure - and all they do is treating symptoms, most of the time by using highly toxic chemicals like the ones used to 'treat' cancer - how stupid and cruel can you get?!). Think of it, the medical industry thrives on putting fear into people and what does that promote? Placebo or nocebo effects? I guess the answer is pretty obvious and it's just the tip of the iceberg... Educate yourself about disease and health, because nobody will do it for you (and once diagnosed with a 'serious illness' the resulting fear/panic will make you an easy victim, that's just how the 'health system' operates). Cheers
The Ultimate Reductionist
I would expect no less of a Reductionist: read the first sentence, ignore the content of the talk and fall back on an age-old premise just disproven.
Well done. Very well done. You're the case and point.
"German New Medicine' (GNM) to become aware how our emotions lie at the basis of 'dis-ease"
Wow! That statement alone shows GNM is pure worthless bullshit & just pure religion, pure ideology, pure propaganda, the antithesis of evidence & proof.
As you pointed out Ben, publishing only positive results in research is a form of research misconduct. Withholding information that could potentially prevent harm or cause harm to others is ethnically wrong. First off, we live in a world of evidence based medicine but what good does it do when we are constantly only able to view bias samples? This violates many of our rules of beneficence in biomedical ethics. For example, as a society that lives in this evidence based community we have right to be completely aware of what drugs we are taking. Withholding information and misleading us goes against our rights. This violates the rule to protect and defend the rights of others. Secondly, not publishing negative data misleads physicians into believing that the medicine they are prescribing is effective. Prescribing ineffective medicine is not preventing harm from occurring to others in fact its directly harming them. For those like Ben, completely away of this, I understand your frustration. Although you are aware of this, the power in your hands to fix it, is not very tenacious. Those aware are unable to remove these conditions that cause harm to others. To continue, I’d like to bring up another ethical issue that is prevalent to misleading medical information. This issue creates conflict within our moral status. The relationship between patient and physician is important. By not allowing all research to be published into the Peer Review of Academic Literature it effects this very important relationship that is formed within our community. In the video, Ben discussed a drug that was researched in 1980 on heart arrhythmia. This research showed that these type of drugs in fact increased the death rate. Unknowingly, physicians could have prescribed this to their patients and caused a great deal of harm. In fact, this is exactly what happened. After this happens the relationship between patient and physician is impacted. The patient can no longer trust the physician’s prognosis even though this is completely out of the physicians control. The moral status in this relationship cannot up-hold its obligations.
It's not just money. It will happen in other scientific areas without the evil "big pharma" interests to skew results into false positives. If you find that men are more likely than women to hit the car horn when someone cuts in front of them, you're more likely to be published than if you had found it's about the same.
Matt Gilbert It is the money. When money encounters science, or politics, or religion, or anything else, things get turned away from where they should be headed. Money may be the root of all evil, as the saying goes, but we all know that money is a rampant force in everything these days.
Young people talk about change, then young doctors should be the change. Open practices where you are paid when you successfully treat something. Eliminate referral fees, eliminate Big Pharma or anyone pushing a drug from rewarding doctors in any way. Forbid Drug Dealers, oops drugs salespersons from entering a physician's office for any reason other than a medical issue that is open and publicly documented to prevent corruption. And that's for starters... it's your turn to change the world, you know it all young people. I dare you to make a difference.
My old doctor, who graduated in 1981, neglected to tell me benzos are addictive, didn't bother monitoring my use of a fucking narcotic and then didn't know what to do or attempt to learn anything about what to do after he found out how much I was taking. I had to figure most of it out on my own. Ten years later, the damaging effects linger.
My new doctor, who graduated in 2012, is a world apart. He was shocked when he heard how my old doctor behaved. He said that with him, patients sign a contract when they start taking benzos or opiates and if their use starts to increase, he talks with them about what to do.
That would have changed everything for me and basically given me the last decade of my life, which I have spent struggling with benzo abuse to the exclusion of most everything else. So things are changing.
Most of the grant money goes to lab rats marking more drugs to treat the addiction to a different drug. Apart from CBT and a few other cognitive therapies, treating the root cause(s) has become unfashionable.
We need a different milieu.
And I should be clear that I'm speaking in generalizations. I know there are exceptions. But as a rule, I'm seeing fresh-out-of-med-school doctors who essentially IDOLIZE Big Pharma, the CDC, etc. to a point of sheer irrationality.
Well, yeah, most of this stuff just seems like common sense to me, but doctors are being trained in medical school to believe everyone in any aspect of the industry is just some ministering angel without the slightest bit of concern for self. It's absurd, but if you so much as hint that maybe money is a motivating factor, etc. they get massively defensive of the entire industry. They don't believe there IS a darker side.
Ben touched on an interesting drug that I've been following since inception. Tamiflu. Anyone else notice now on TV the Tamiflu commercials starting to pour in (2015-2016)? So, Roche creates this drug for the swine flu epidemic in 2008. Countries stockpile the drug, making Roche millions in the process. And now, suddenly 7 years later, the drug is being commercially marketed for the common flu...Anyone else find this peculiar? Mind you, the ministry of health in Japan has banned the drug after several reports of adverse effects, which of course Roche denies. But, even that aside, why would we want to treat the common flu with such a powerful drug? Doesn't that give an opportunity for flu strains to adapt? 1. Who decided it was a good idea to downgrade Tamiflu to treat the common cold? 2. Has Roche been giving padded trials to the FDA that they think its completely safe with no adverse reactions? 3. Who is behind the commercials? Roche has already made their money. Do they want more? Or are the stockpiles reaching expiration and this is a keen way of buying back losses due to the uneventful swine "pandemic"?
This is absurd. And we are living it.
My grandson had influenza last winter. The doctor wanted to give him Tamiflu at $2,000 without insurance. When asked what it does he said reduces the illness a few days faster than normal. Grandma's chicken soup and cookies does the same thing with no side effects.
for some reason I got the idea that Gordon Ramsey could go to the universities and make a show about Research Nightmares, and it would help whip everyone into shape. So what would happen if I went to U.T. and just started going to researchers' offices and acting outraged about this bad practice? I TOOK that medicine and it was DISGUSTING!
Also my new health insurance company Sendaro should watch this.
AllTrials, the campaign group that is trying to bring about clinical trials transparency, is currently trying to raise funds for their US campaign. Please go and donate to them!
I have been saying this for years. I was put on antidepressants and so was two of my family members. We told them the drugs didn't work but the doctors refused to believe us and we were labelled as non compliant. I also believe most cancer prevention screeing doesn't work or is bad for people.
Firstly I am sorry to hear that. Secondly, anti-depressants have a fairly low efficacy. I have been on a fair few and they were totally ineffective in the long term. Studies have suggested that the placebo effect is at work in many cases in trials of more mild depression, and that the trials take place with people that can go to clinical trials and are in that environment.
Research suggests that the best treatment is probably cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) but that's only about 50% effectiveness. New research into "Wellness" treatments look positive, but it's early days.
I hope things have improved for you in the interim.
+Liz B Angry I am so sorry. I fear doctors I really do. My brother has had severe liver problems since taking Lipitor. HE's now 52 and it started when he was 40. He went in for physical and had slightly "elevated" cholesterol, put on lipitor and now his liver is ruined. I was also put on Statins and I just threw them away. I'll take my chances. They were giving me horrible muscle problems. If it's any help to you, my uncle had a SEVERE heart attack when he was 50 and his heart didn't work properly after that. He just recently died at 87. He was too sick for heart surgery so they gave him medical management and he did just as well. All these cardiac surgeries are not all their cracked up to be either. People have mental,and emotional problems after cardiac surgery and I believe they do it way too much.
If we do a control group study of one group getting the drug, and another, getting a placebo drug. It would probably be safe to say that most people know that drugs have side effects. so with the group getting the real thing, how do we know that they aren't 'tipped off' by the fact that they are actually getting the drug when they experience the side effect, and there for a placebo effect could kick in on that group? how can any study of any drug be of any real value? How can we argue that it would be of any real value if those in the study can deduce that they are getting the drug over the placebo or vice versa?
To help eliminate this issue, studies performed using a blinding protocol may be regarded to have a higher level of strength to their findings. A "double blind" approach is commonly used wherein neither the patients or researchers know which patients belong to the active group and which belong to the control group. After all of the data is collected, the blinding is unveiled (software is usually involved to eliminate bias), and results paired to their respective groups can be seen. Smart right? If this technique is used, it will be stated under the Methods section of the study. Of course, there are some circumstances in medicine where this method isn't ethical to use. For example, if a surgery were being studied, it would be ethically questionable to perform a sham surgery in the placebo group.
I like that you brought up how the patient may be tipped of on which group they are in by adverse effects they are experiencing. While this is true, it is also really interesting to look at the raw data of adverse effects reported in the active group vs the placebo group (both of which need to be shown in the literature for it to be a valid study). Sometimes the placebo group reports certain adverse effects at similar rates as the active group does. Potential explanations depend on the specific study, but the reader can use a number of analytical skills to deduce if, like you mentioned, the patients were expecting a certain thing to happen so they did in fact experience it. Knowing a lot about the details of the science (physiology of disease state, drug mechanism, biochemistry, etc.) being studied is usually necessary for accurate interpretation. The same phenomenon occurs with the effectiveness of the medication as well. The more one learns about what to look for in study design/methods, the better one gets at critically analyzing the strength of a certain study. Potentially even more importantly, properly analyzing research includes knowing how to pull out what is actually clinically relevant information from what is just numbers. Drug X may help a patient get over a cold faster and the data may have statistically significant backing, but if faster means 0.5 hours out of a 5-7 day long cold, is that drug of any use? Probably not, but studies do this kind of thing all the time. I hope this helps!
Here are the real fixes: a) only an objective medical scientific facility be allowed to conduct the drug trials; (b) all doctors who accept money from drug companies, are criminally and civilly prosecuted; (c) individuals within corporations like Pfizer, and their contractees, who knowingly constructed fraudulent studies and marketed drugs fraudulently, get criminally and civilly prosecuted as individuals (get rid of the "corporate shield" that protects criminals from prosecution as individuals).
Probably, a general step in the right direction. But is it so simple? Probably, someone is lower management will go to jail, and the people who are instructing them to do so (else lose their job) will get away scot-free. That happen in the U.S. with Wells Fargo.
Some consequence is better than no consequence, but great care needs to be taken on pointing at the most responsible culprit (as single to a few people go to jail) versus the truth of the matter, which it was a majority of people and the culture.
A insanely large amount of damages, I think, is still viable. They are for profit businesses. Money is their life blood.
+mich6781 Researchers and big pharma management should go to jail for not publishing all relevant results. An honor code or self regulation is not good enough - peer review is a demonstrated failure. Jail is the only way this problem will be solved.
Shame on all of you using this video to promote your own "natural" nonsense. Yes there are problems in medicine, but it's still the best we have and we're trying to fix it.
Another person's flaw is not your virtue. If you think any flaws in medical research means that your favourite unsubstantiated claim is better - be it naturopathy, homeopathy, or your standard "vaccines are an evil conspiracy" nonsense - you might want to read Ben Goldacre's other book, "Bad Science", and you won't be able to dismiss his points by calling him a "big pharma shill" or similar. You already know he isn't one.
Take on a challenge of your ideas.
+For Sure grape fruit is useful in keeping blood pressure under control but for people like my dad who developed high BP grape fruit and other natural remedies were useless ! But since he does not believe in modern science he refused high blood pressure Pills prescribed by doctors, he didn't take pills for 3 years and was doing fine with exercise and Healthy diet but then one morning at work he developed severe chest pain and was diagnosed as heart attack . He spent 8 months in the hospital with consequent renal failure and brain damage ,he's no more now. Since that that day i decided that I wanted to learn science and help people get rid of pseudoscience beliefs , although I wanna be a doctor im not ready for the amount of studies and work involved in that field so I became a engineer. But let me tell you please follow science don't believe non sense thing's on the internet if you have high BP it's better to take meds and do Healthy lifestyle than have a regret later
Well I will eat grapefruit to lower my blood pressure which benefits not only my blood pressure but also my liver etc etc with zero side affects whilst my brother in law continues to use synthetic drugs which his doctor told him to use to treat high blood pressure which gives him nausea, migranes and to top it off he cant get it up anymore........but thats ok science has more drugs to treat those side affects, shall I go into the side affects of those drugs as well?
This guy is a fantastic speaker whom I believe has left absolutely no questions to ask, except for when will this situation be corrected. God I hope governments have made inroads in to this high level of corruption and greed since this talk.
This situation is appauling, especially so, because I deal out the drugs that come from this phony research system everyday. Outrageous.
Hope is not enough. Action and support is what is needed. Awareness helps.
For this to change, the people need to demand it from their elected representatives. Political will needs to totally shift, which as you know is like changing the direction of planetary rotation.
This one single TED talk, is not enough, although good start to bringing this to light. Topic needs more awareness, more outrage, and more of a shift in public opinion (in a proactive we can fix this and not a new organization spin "can you trust you drugs?" sort of way).
Until representatives fear loosing office, many (not all) will take those pharmaceutical company donation with a smiling faces.
On the positive side, at least we are definitively aware of this and have data to back up our arguments. We all have are part to play in investigating who we vote for. For the U.S., I go to http://www.opensecrets.org/ and check lobbying dollars.
"I hope governments have made inroads in to this high level of corruption"
Bullshit. What a load of idiotic anti-logic hysteria.
How about governments making inroads at ending fossil fuel addiction, end coal & gas fracking,
and massively fund green energy instead.
+Glenn Smith eh... it might be getting worse- the new round of Trade Agreements all hand unprecedented power to Pharmaceutical companies- nations that would pursue solutions like Goldacre suggest would face monetary penalties for 'ruining trade' :/
I'm having a hard time hearing a physician can go on studies alone. How about reaching out in the early stages to fellow physicians or people who have tried it first? I wouldn't go with any decision in my career without asking others. To trust a study? I'm in e-commerce, there are about 10 strong platforms. You think I'd commit a client to one before reading reviews from people who have used them? You think I'm going to listen to the platform's publisher for their studies of all things?!? Are you insane? Here's an idea for any physician.. don't ask if it works.. ask why it works. If the question cannot be answered, wait until it can be - by someone other than yourself. Is that a difficult concept to grasp the ethics of? Even is a study is replicated 100 times... an opinion from three people who's used is worth more. Think about illegal drugs and how much second and third hand propaganda there is on each of them. Its even abhorrent at that level where you have drug educators who have never tried even once the drugs they publish information on. MDMA after all is not much more than increased heart rate and sweating.. why would you want to? ;)
But the whole point is that these drugs have never been used in humans before. So how can you ask others how they got on with the drug? At some point you have to test a new drug in real people. But the research/trial must be scientific. That is, conducted properly and rigorously.
Ben Goldacre, brilliant as always but stays away(probably for fear of legal consequences in the Land of the Free) from the WHY. And the "why" is simple enough...the corporate, 'big pharma' has invested "big money" in products and because of the commercial pressures on scientists and results they withold studies for all sorts of spurious reasons.
A famous example is GM food, safety thereof. Now, I was visiting a GM website where it was asserted that "no study has shown there to be the slightest danger from gm foods" . People are meant to be reassured by that statement...but not me. Billions are at stake over GM foods and one wonders just how many research projects have been suppressed. So, are we to be confident? Or suspicious.
+THOMAS CAIN - No need to put my name in scare quotes. You can look me up, I'm a real person. Also a quick note that I didn't say "looked into every aspect". That shouldn't be in quotes either. Anyway, on to your point about Mexican genes. The claim by anti-GM activists is two fold: 1. that GM crops are inherently harmful and inherently different than existing selectively bred crops, and 2. that GM crops are so favored in natural selection that they will wipe out the other crops.
As to the first point, if you have any training in biology, specifically how DNA works, you'll know that it is a digital information system. Meaning there are only four possible nucleotides which determine the genetic code. So whether a particular gene was reached by transgenic (GM) methods, or by selective breeding, the end result is exactly the same and 100% indistinguishable. Much like the creation of molecules -- if you have a container of pure h2o, it is completely impossible to tell whether that water was formed by a human being burning hydrogen gas in oxygen gas, or whether it was distilled from rainwater. Given enough time, any DNA combination can be reached through natural mutations and selective breeding. It just takes longer and costs more. Meanwhile, people are starving of malnutrition on the order of millions, while the world population continues to grow at an exponential rate.
As to the idea that GM crops are so favored in natural selection that they'll wipe out other crops, let's look at what an independent study by the CEC (http://www.cec.org/), commissioned by the mexican residents themselves, concluded. After extensive study, they found that:
"There is no reason to expect that a transgene would have any greater or lesser effect on the genetic diversity of landraces than other genes from similarly used modern cultivars. The scientific definition of genetic diversity is the sum of all of the variants of each gene in the gene pool of a given population, variety, or species. The maize gene pool represents tens of thousands of genes, many of which vary within and among populations. Transgenes are unlikely to displace more than a tiny fraction of the native gene pool, if any, because maize is an outcrossing plant with very high rates of genetic recombination. Instead, transgenes would be added to the dynamic mix of genes that are already present in landraces, including conventional genes from modern cultivars. Thus, the introgression of a few individual transgenes is unlikely to have any major biological effect on genetic diversity in maize landraces."
So yes, I have looked into the Mexican scare. And I'm not finding much to be frightened about, other than the dangers of giving the unedecated public a voice over experts in the field (i.e. anti-gmo activists), and of course the profit motive in business (e.g. Monsanto). The latter you are aware of, and we agree is a danger, but the former should be just as frightening to you.
As for the source you suggested, I would recommend choosing ones which aren't so clearly biased. In the same way we would bring much skepticism to a report by Monsanto about the safety of particular agriculture, we should also bring much skepticism to a website run by non-scientists.
I appreciate that "Michael Trollan" has 'looked into every aspect' of the GM question. But I suggest he look again. GM does spread; well attested gm transgenic maize has turned up in Mexico miles from where it was authorised to grow thus creating the danger that maize might become degraded in the land of its birth. That was a Univ of California research team that reported that. In Europe too. Undeniable. The GM industry is great at cant because gm at present is linked to, its only reason to exist is, massive doses of glyphosate do not kill it while destroying everything else. And THAT gives rats tumours.
If you are a troll, examine your conscience; this is a time of great danger
If you are genuine, look again at "every aspect". Start with website. www.gmwatch.org
It should be called medical mistakes and many need to be called deliberate mistreatment. It happens every day. Many doctors and hospitals are ill and corrupt. People are treated with the courtesy of livestock commodities. They know they are not providing what is needed.
Lets' say we do a control group study of one group getting the drug, and another, getting a placebo. Most people know that drugs have side effects. So with the group getting the real thing, how do we know that they are not tipped off to the fact they are actually getting the drug when they experience side effects, and therefore a placebo effects kicks in on that group? How can any study of any drug be, therefore, of any real value?
Placebos can make one feel sick perhaps, however i tend to agree your argument has legs. It might be a better idea to do trials by full dose and 1/10th dose than a full dose and sugar. I personally would feel ill at-ease giving a "control group" sugar and believing they would all be fooled.
Jazzy, take it from a guy with a family of not just physicians, but surgeons and field specialists. They do not have integrity for their profession. Whereas most professionals know something about everything, and where it came from and why.. I've found the medical field is a lot more about dry procedure. In fact, I developed tinnitus and saw three specialists who said it was not curable. It took me two years but i narrowed it down to certain preservatives, mainly nitrates and phosphates. After a certain amount, my ears act up big time in the form of bad ringing that will last for days. When i first got it i was devouring souvlakis daily, and these are heavily nitrated for restaurant storage. Tell me, why did i figure it out for myself, whereas the word preservative was not even mentioned once as a possibility? Most questions to people in the field are answered with "I don't know." In the case of eye floaters, most opto doctors will tell you the laser doesn't work. And yet, there they are, right on youtube. A guy getting his floaters laser treated before our very eyes. Perhaps the procedure has its risks, perhaps the results vary, but the answer from 90% of their community of professionals is a flat out "Can't be done." The next time a doctor tells you something, don't thank him for his advice, ask him why he feels that way.
+Henry Ibbs I took your expression as an exoneration, as if you were downplaying the seriousness of this. It is stills sounds mild to me to call this an 'error', no matter what the dictionary says. Fraud implies an awareness, a deliberateness that is not present in the word 'error' or 'mistake'. In any case, if you agree on the gravity of these crimes, then definitions are secondary.
And it sounded 'cynical' not naive. Cynicism implies awareness, again, as in fraud. Calling yourself naive really would imply that you are not aware of the main elementary forces the govern society and human behavior. That would be very, very naive. That's why it sounded cynical to me, just because of a matter of probability and common sense.
I'm a pharmacy student, well aware of the multi-tiered criticism of SSRIs. I was having some trouble with mental health and after practically begging with a psychiatrist, and staff at my uni, i still am being forced by the university to follow his orders and take a course of citalopram. It's been incredibly stressful, i feel completely impotent in my own care and the credibility i've worked hard for has been completely ignored. I'm going to have to lie to the mental health staff and tell them i'm taking my medication, i feel dishonest and feel that my care has been completely compromised by this, my depression and self-esteem has never been worse. I understand there are billions (even trillions) of pounds at stake for the pharmaceutical companies, but I wonder if they have some excuse for their behaviour, or if they simply don't think about it. They deserve to have their noses rubbed in every life they've affected or cost
SSRI's have helped my one son immensely, and did not help my other son at all. My older son has absolutely no side effects and has made his life so much better. My other son can't take anything. Cause him too many side effects.
I know its been 4 years now but it means I get to ask you an important question: What was your story on the SSRI? How much did it help versus how much it hindered you? Did your self esteem and spirits rise? Did you get any permanent side effects (EG the sexual dysfunction or increased depression), did the depression subside? I take it you've been taken off Citalopram now because its been so long, or did you stay on it longterm? Any sincere answers you can give on this would be much appreciated as I've been prescribed Sertraline (another SSRI, for depression and anxiety) and after reading about the side effects I was more than worried. Anyway, I hope your treatment helped you and you stayed in work/eductation; its a hard life, no matter what you're doing, with depression.
"I really really don't think you understand what I am saying, otherwise you would have stopped by now."
Yes because you have all the answers.
The fact that you can point to a small area of doubt pales (which as I stated always exists in the real world) pales into insignificance when confronted with the facts about Vioxx (which you have yet to look up)
If you want to argue the actual fact, I suggest that you familiarise yourself with them. Simply saying this or that could be the case, without actually knowing the facts is a waste of time.
Epidemiology is not an exact science, but there are times when it does a pretty good job of highlighting a serious problem.
This is one such case. The correlation could easily have been refuted by carrying out a few thousand post mortems.
The drug company chose instead to settle a much smaller class action suit out of court and withdraw a multi-billion dollar product.
You see, you were not the only "expert" to look at this problem. And those experts chose not to draw attention to the data you referred to.
You are of course correct to state that epidemiology is not enough to establish cause and effect. But my original post should have made it clear that cause and effect had already been established, my comment was referring to the possibly much larger magnitude of that effect.
+wjestick I really really don't think you understand what I am saying, otherwise you would have stopped by now. I am not saying that the drug is good. I am saying that just because they happened at the same time, doesn't meant it was that that caused it.Which is the only thing you said in your original comment. Now, if you had started with saying all of those people were using that drug, then yes, that would be a good argument. If they never took the drug, it doesn't matter if anything else was related or if it was the same demographics, it was not the drug that killed them even if they do correlate. That's all I am saying. It's useless to look at your demographics, sales, active period for the drug if you don't bother to analyze your target population. That is, the people actually taking the drug. Also you clearly don't understand basic science because genetics could work over a shot period of time although unlikely. Not saying this is the case though.
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.