Doctors Say: "Most Published Research Findings Are False"!

Tweet

Dr. John Ioannidis of the Tufts-New England Medical Center, Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston has come right out & said what some of us already knew, "It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false". Published in the journal PLoS Medicine, Dr. Ioannidis explains that there's an increasing concern in the scientific community that most current published research findings are false. Study outcomes are influenced by a number of factors, including researchers’ bias, financial interests, sponsors’ interests, limited sample sizes, poor study design, statistical manipulations & just plain old greed. “Simulations show that for most study designs & settings, it's more likely for a research claim to be false than true,” says Dr. Ioannidia. “For many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.” For most of the past several decades medical investigators have skewed research toward condemning saturated fat & cholesterol because that was the prevailing bias. Although now enough accurate research has been done to show that eating saturated fat and cholesterol don't promote heart disease, stroke, or diabetes, bias keeps the lipid hypothesis alive. The lipid hypothesis was born primarily though the work of Dr. Ancel Keys, who published a study showing that as fat consumption increases, so do heart disease deaths. He created a graph showing the data from six countries. This graph clearly showed that those countries that ate little fat had low heart disease death rates and those that ate the most fat had the highest death rates. The graph he created showed a straight line relationship between fat consumption & heart disease deaths. In 1970 he refined his hypothesis further using seven countries to show a similar relationship between saturated fat and heart disease. His belief was that dietary saturated fats were the cause of heart disease. His graphs convinced many in the medical community & so the lipid hypothesis became the prevailing belief for the next several decades. Much research was published in an effort to further prove this hypothesis. The problem with Dr. Keys’ original work was that it was all fabricated. He had data from some 20 countries he could have used, yet he carefully selected only those countries that neatly fit his hypothesis. The rest of the data was ignored as if it didn’t exist. If Dr. Keys had used all the data available to him when he created his graph, the relationship between dietary fat & heart disease would have vanished. Many decades of medical & nutritional research have been tainted due to bias based on faulty science. While more accurate studies are being published in regards to the effect of dietary fat on heart disease & other conditions, a strong financial interest exists that struggles to keep alive false theories. Pharmaceutical companies make billions of dollars selling cholesterol-lowering drugs. The latest studies are showing that total blood cholesterol is inconsequential and does not affect heart disease; cholesterol levels are more about hereditary rather than diet. To counter, the pharmaceutical industry has sponsored a multitude of studies to justify the use of cholesterol-lowering drugs. As a consequence, the medical literature is filled with conflicting studies in regard to diet, nutrition, and cholesterol. The pharmaceutical industry sponsors a vast amount of research. Researchers know that if they publish information uncomplimentary to their sponsor, their funding will be cut off & their careers could be in jeopardy. Therefore, there's enormous pressure placed on the researchers to produce favorable results. Even if researchers are funded by private or government agencies, if they publish studies critical of drug companies’ interests they are targeted for attack. Drug companies keep hit lists of those who criticize them. A recent news story tells about such lists found on company emails that were leaked to the public. The pharmaceutical giant Merck identified certain doctors who had criticized the painkiller Vioxx, a dangerous and now-withdrawn drug that the company produced. Company emails described ways to “neutralize” & “discredit” these doctors. One of the methods they use to discredit the research of the doctors on their hit lists is to fund research to counteract their claims. A good example of this is the case of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. He's a Senior Lecturer at the Royal Free Hospital School of Medicine in the UK, & was one of the original researchers who discovered the link between autism and childhood vaccinations. The study that landed him in trouble was published in The Lancet, in February 1998. In this article he only suggested the possible connection between autism and vaccinations. But the article caused vaccination sales in the UK to decline dramatically. In retaliation, the pharmaceutical industry hired researchers to publish studies discrediting Wakefield’s work & to demonstrate that there is no link between autism and vaccinations. Several studies were published, and the media (no doubt prodded by the drug industry) loudly proclaimed all is well, there is no fear, vaccinations do not cause autism. However, it was later discovered, without any media fanfare, that the lead author of some of these studies had fabricated the data. He may not have even written the studies he is credited (or discredited) for writing. It is likely that the drug company paid a ghostwriter to write the articles and all he did was sign his name to them. Medical ghostwriting is big business and a highly profitable one for the drug companies. It's also a very unethical practice as well because it advertises alleged benefits of drugs while hiding adverse side effects. The media are continually reporting adverse reactions to newly approved drugs, many of which are pulled from store shelves as complaints pile up and lawsuits ensue. Remember the Phen-fen fiasco or the Baycol blunder? These FDA-approved drugs caused many deaths and crippled others before being pulled from the market. Phen-fen, which was prescribed as an aid in weight loss, caused permanent heart and lung damage. Baycol, a cholesterol-lowering statin drug, caused breakdown of muscle tissue resulting in kidney and heart failure. Interestingly, most of these “side effects” were known before they were approved by the FDA, but were considered only “minor” nuisances because the drug companies downplayed or even suppressed this information during the approval process. Studies submitted to the FDA are typically conducted by or funded by the drug manufacturer, who obviously had a heavy financial interest. These & later studies, however, are not necessarily accurate or factual. Once a drug is approved, additional studies promoting the effectiveness of the drug are needed to entice doctors to prescribe it & reporters to write glowing articles about it to convince the public & create demand for the product. Unfortunately, many of these drugs don’t perform as well as they are touted or carry health risks that far outweigh any potential benefit. To sidestep this problem the drug companies engage in the practice of medical ghostwriting. Medical ghostwriting is the production of phony medical articles based on biased research to promote the use of drugs & vaccines. Peer-reviewed articles published in medical journals are the "gold standard" when it comes to scientific reports. Your doctor relies on them when making decisions affecting your health. Medical ghostwriting is scary because your doctor may be basing his advice to you on marketing propaganda rather than sound science. This ultimately may be disastrous to your health, just as Phen-fen, Baycol, & Vioxx were for thousands of others. Drug companies hire people with scientific backgrounds, often with PhDs, to stay in the shadows & crank out glowing reports for their products. The drug companies then pay doctors to put their names on the studies as the authors. Many doctors are more than willing to do this for the money & prestige, also to advance their careers. Medical ghostwriters are given an outline from the drug companies telling them what to write and what data to use. Negative data is not provided. The purpose of the article is to make the study sound as positive as possible to get good media publicity & encourage doctors to prescribe the drug. Adverse side effects are often completely ignored. Medical ghostwriters often make over $100,000 a year. Drug companies pay as much as $20,000 for a single article that makes its way into a prestigious medical journal like the Lancet, British Medical Journal, or the New England Journal of Medicine. The drug companies pay doctors and university professors who have no connection with the study to sign their names as the authors of the article. Some of these “authors” may not have even read the studies they supposedly have written. Drug companies prefer high-profile authors: the higher the profile, the greater the credibility for the article. This explains why some doctors can be listed as authors or coauthors to a dozen or more studies a year. In reality, he or she may not have done any actual work on the articles or the studies. “What appear to be scientific articles are really infomercials,” says Dr. David Healy of Cardiff University School of Medicine, Wales. Unfortunately, universities get entangled with the drug companies as well. Drug companies fund research. Universities thrive on the prestige & money generated from this research. Consequently, researchers are pressured to produce favorable results & minimize unfavorable results. The consequences of publishing the facts, regardless of the sponsor, can have drastic repercussions. Dr. Healy lost his position at the University of Toronto after he criticized the drug company Eli Lilly for suppressing evidence that its drug Prozac leads to in