What doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe | Ben Goldacre

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.

[RobertDePinto]

We need him now. More than ever. So many are fooled by what science is, what peer review means, and the publishing system.

[mattgilbert]

Somewhere along the line we lost sight of what science is and instead have focused on what sells.

[rhondaweber]

It's more than not publishing negative results, it's suppressing results.

[SilverShadow]

The statement that 100, 000 people died as a result of the testing of one drug literally had me crying. This is a horrible thing that is happening.

[wdtony]

An SSRI adverse reaction almost killed me in 2006. Serotonin Syndrome....but my doctor wanted to blame an "underlying condition" at first. Now I know high numbers of people have died or suffered brain damage from these prescription drugs. Yet, the marketed induced paradigm is that these drugs are safe.

[natedoggstyle]

Hiding information and research bias has taken on untold heights with COVID-19.

[laurawillingham]

And as of September 2019, it still hasn't been "fixed", sadly.

[conodeen]

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.)

[deejaych]

This video is more valid now than ever. Thank you Bret Weinstein for directing me to it

[cardiacmyxoma]

I told my mom (a cardiologist) and she said that she knew this was going on. That’s why she tries to prescribe alternatives to medication.

[obiektywemlibby]

oh well... we all live in the world full of corruption. I'm glad not everyone is blind...

[grpillock]

Still one of my absolute favorite of ALL the TedTalks I've seen. Just a genius. A freakin hero.

[ZER--]

What I found out recently shocked me. When testing a drug, or other substances, on rats the researchers can use different types of rats which can lead to different results. I was quite surprised as it can be used to give you more favourable results.

[chriscoffee]

This is one of the reasons I avoid doctors and any prescribed drugs and other 'medicine' wherever possible. Unless you're seriously ill there is always a way to treat it with something that comes from nature, by eating more of something, or less of something, or applying something that comes direct from something that grows naturally, or just by ignoring it as best as possible and letting your body fix it, and so being better suited to resist it next time.

[kissykrissy]

Checking in during the middle of 2021, it's fascinating the foreshadowing we have missed

[dragonballjiujitsu]

Its nice to see someone with credibility saying what me and others have been saying for 20+ years.

[pavel]

Even more relevant today than 9 years ago when this video came out

[channandlerb]

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.

[bluecafe]

This has been going on for years. I had a professor whose work, which was damning to the testing industry (academic testing), could never get his research published in the more popular journals. He was widely regarded as an authority in his field, but journal gatekeepers are free to accept or reject the research they choose.

We now know that tests do not predict future performance in school and that the best predictor of future academic success is indeed past level of academic attainment.

[maheshsnair]

One of the most important videos on youtube.