Observational studies - basics, agreement with randomized trials, flawed vaccine studies, UCSF talk

Vinay Prasad, MD MPH; Physician & Professor
Hematologist/ Oncologist
Professor of Epidemiology, Biostatistics and Medicine
Author of 450+ Peer Reviewed papers, 2 Books, 2 Podcasts, 100+ op-eds.

Follow me on:
Twitter @vprasadmdmph

[jasonbroderick]

I have been watching and listening to you for about 3 years now. You need to put together a set of videos aimed at the high school literacy level. Your information is great but lost in translation for those with limited understanding of immunology, disease and basic research methodology. Not a criticism just that your level o knowledge is way above most people’s everyday understanding. I am high school biology teacher with 10 years experience in vaccine research before I decided to become a teacher. Most high school teachers don’t have a clue on how real research is carried out. This is a much needed resource.

[nickynicks]

I am reading your book Malignant. What a great book! What an eye opener.

[philosophyze]

Incentives and deception must also be considered for validity of observation or studies or peer review. Fraud mitigation needs to be part of all these processes. We're seen the very real institutional capture by industry and ideology the last few years and something like separation of powers and funding of unpopular ideas by appropriately designed studies that aren't designed to fail (such as by incorrect dosage or improper timing). Critics must be involved in the study design or their concerns won't be addressed and nothing will have been solved because they won't move on and the debate at an impass.

[johndavidkromkowski]

Thank you.

I remain convinced that the simple change from 95% CLs to 99.7% CLs would make an massive improvement.

We are hiding our ignorance of actual causal mechanisms between 2 and 3 sigma.

[rohamhadidchi]

as a young observational researcher, i heavily appreciate this talk. thank you Dr Prasad

[careyjamesmajeski]

This is exactly the type of content that I’d like to see more of.

[ogeoge]

Thank you Dr Prasad.
Do you know why Professor Thomas Seyfried's treatment for cancer hasn't been adopted?
It seems logical and very effective.

[dontthinkso]

Much respect for what you're doing.be careful, these ppl are whack jobs. They love taking ppl out, no problem. Please (I know from experience) be careful, you first. Remember the many millions already sick, injured and unalive. We don't matter to them. But we do to each other. Thank you for being brave, stay safe.

[philosophyze]

Why isn't Bayesian inference used more often? It seems a much more applicable and effective tool in our world of imperfect and always updating knowledge than after-the-fact collection and deduction with frequentist statistical techniques and calculations. Don't these results give a false impression of precise and definite knowledge?

[sizzla]

Great talk!
If Nothing Changes, Nothing Changes.

[simonhouston]

Aaaaah Vinay!!! Don’t skip the parachute analogy. Thank you for your analysis and clear vision of how science should be approached.

[erzapi]

Excellent lecture as usual. Inspiring job by Dr Prasad. I just wanna ask if someone can explain me a little bit more about de time zero effect in observational studies. Thank you.

[dj_laundry_list]

I remain confused about why we'd actually study things when we could just be ideological about them, which would be so much cheaper

[mantasr]

I think the largest issue is that you have a patient with a very bleak outlook and you know (just like the guy jumping out of the airplane) if you do NOTHING it will end badly. "Do nothing" doesn't cure cancer.
So people try whatever might work.
Its good we have best standard practice therapies, so we can compare with those - but did all of them come about from random trials? Or mostly from people looking at what seems to work.

[careyjamesmajeski]

Excellent, helpful, relevant. Thanks

[JCResDoc]

41:00 err checking. (driving test) _JC

[mathieuouimet]

Towards the beginning of the video, something very important was said: RCTs are not conducted to test for adverse effects or harm. Although understandable, it provides promoters of interventions with a solid defence against criticism : causal evidence of harmfulness is often weak.

[sumitagg]

How do you adjust this for genetic therapies in ultra rare diseases

[helenhenthorn]

Cochrane Library’s strong acknowledgement of the value of observational control studies: Cochrane Systematic Review from data of 1583 meta-analyses that covered 228 different medical conditions.: “Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials” The Cochrane Library determined: “Our results provide little evidence for significant effect estimate differences between observational studies and RCTs, regardless of specific observational study design, heterogeneity, inclusion of pharmacological studies, or use of propensity score adjustment”.

[datamongerbonny]

I swear I listened to every word but totally admiring the long hair look lol.