Why Almost Everything You Hear About Medicine Is Wrong

Newsweek ^ | January 24, 2011 | Sharon Begley

[aMorePerfectUnion]

But what if wrong answers aren’t the exception but the rule? More and more scholars who scrutinize health research are now making that claim. It isn’t just an individual study here and there that’s flawed, they charge. Instead, the very framework of medical investigation may be off-kilter, leading time and again to findings that are at best unproved and at worst dangerously wrong.

[aMorePerfectUnion]

Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, Chief of Stanford University’s Prevention Research Center, claims THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL RESEARCH IS WRONG. Interesting article.

[corkoman]

Most of what John Ioannidis claims is wrong. What a dope.

[hinckley buzzard]

Please be advised that "sharon begley" has no scientific training nor medical credential whatsoever. She is the equivalent of a Macdonalds burger-flipper with a comfy billet at Newsweak.

[Yet_Again]

I’m not sure that it’s safe to say “the majority” of medical research is wrong, but there is a strong push to publish or perish at most academic medical centers. This drives people to put together and publish studies which many times are small, underpowered, or dedicated to disproving a previous study just to get their names in print. Academia has made it so that publishing is even a requirement to graduate from a medical residency.

Add to this the fact that at least some percentage of physicians at these centers are dyed-in-the-wool liberals who do not hesitate to incorporate things like cost-per-life-year-saved into their studies when making recommendations and you have a receipe for a lot of bad science.

My personal policy is to reject any single study that goes against what I know to be true about human physiology and treat patients on an individual basis as I see to their personal well being without trying to play Obamacare cop.

But I’m old school like that.

[Psycho_Bunny]

"Interesting article"?

Hardly. Nothing published by Newsweek can be trusted. Perhaps the the author makes true statements...I don't know....guilt by association.

[JohnThune2012]

does this mean I just wasted $87,298.42 on Flintstone Vitamins since I was 6 years old?

[aMorePerfectUnion]

My understanding is that this woman is a reporterette. Like most of the media...

The other day, I told a story that involved a piece of toast and some peanut butter - yet I’m not a baker or a Georgian.

[IrishCatholic]

Well, actually reading the article at the link, I can see how money does determine a lot of what research finds.

Thanks, it was an interesting article.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

On a related note:

Most scientific papers are probably wrong

[Wayne07]

Which of Ioannidis’ claims do you think are wrong?

[bluejay]

What a convenient article! We could save gazillions by having bureaucrats rationally and intelligently decide which tests and pills are useful and which are not. And you thought ObamaCare would not save money.

Sorry for the sarcasm.

[FreeReign]

Beware of Obama and his death panels trying to rewrite medical procedures.

Yesterday there was a story about breast cancer and its treatment with costly lymph node removal surgery. ABC News breathlessly reported that such surgery was no longer needed.

Now we see Newsweak pushing Dr. Ioannidis and his claim that "Most Published Research Findings Are False".

[corkoman]

as reported he "claims THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL RESEARCH IS WRONG" and I claim that the majority of what he claims is wrong.

How can you possibly doubt that assertion?

[WaterBoard]

Dr. John P.A. Ioannidis, Chief of Stanford University’s Prevention Research Center, claims THE MAJORITY OF MEDICAL RESEARCH IS WRONG FRAUDULENT

Most research is fraudulent and unscientific.

1) Big pharma and medical device manufacturers fund most of the research and surprise, surprise, guess what the outcomes of that research is? 2) FDA officials who approve these drugs and medical devices for market are often hired by the very companies they were paid to regulate.

a) "Industry-funded research often favors patent-holders, study finds." Specifically, the American Journal of Psychiatry study authors said, "In 90% of the studies, the reported overall outcome was in favor of the sponsor's drug... On the basis of these contrasting findings in head-to-head trials, it appears that whichever company sponsors the trial produces the better antipsychotic drug."

b) n a more recent study, Canadian doctor Joel Lexchin and colleagues did a comprehensive meta-analysis of what is currently known about the alleged tendency of drug company sponsorship to produce biased research results. They concluded that there is a systematic bias to the outcome of published research funded by the pharmaceutical industry. When research is funded by the pharmaceutical industry, it is significantly more likely to favour the industry's products than when the funding is industry-independent. The results apply across a wide range of disease states, drugs and drug classes, over at least two decades and regardless of the type of research being assessed.

[FreeReign]

I’m not sure that it’s safe to say “the majority” of medical research is wrong, but there is a strong push to publish or perish at most academic medical centers. This drives people to put together and publish studies which many times are small, underpowered, or dedicated to disproving a previous study just to get their names in print. Academia has made it so that publishing is even a requirement to graduate from a medical residency.

I could be wrong but I would think that most medical research isn't done in academia.

[freedomfiter2]

Most medical research is payed for by the government. Would you really expect it to succeed?

[freeandfreezing]

In the long run much of what humans think they know in the sciences is proven to be wrong. That’s the nature of progress.

[Sequoyah101]

Having been involved with academia I see a lot of “research” that is nothing more than pimping for papers and department dollars. Most people in academia are thrilled to have someone from industry come in with a REAL project that needs work. They usually can’t work without supervision though since they aren’t accustomed to delivering things on a schedule.

There is also the hard push back you get if they think you are interfering with “academic independence” and direction of funds.

There is also the problem of the extension service for A&M colleges creaming 35% of your research dollars off the top for... WHAT? Feeding their bloated state employee system.

They want to keep the money coming back so they “sometimes” can be influenced by where the money comes from. You see, “academic independence” isn’t always pure.

[PeterPrinciple]

The use of statistics is when this all started going worng.

[WaterBoard]

1) Scientists in the US are more likely to publish fake research than their colleagues from other countries, a study has revealed. The findings appear in the November 16 online issue of the Journal of Medical Ethics.

2) Baystate Medical Center in Springfield, Massachusetts, has asked several anesthesiology journals to retract 21 drug studies published between 1996 and 2008 by anesthesiologist Scott S. Reuben, M.D., a pioneer in the area of multimodal analgesia.* The studies were funded by Pfizer, Merck, and Wyeth. Reuben was also paid by Pfizer as a speaker to promote its products.* Raymond F. Kerins Jr., a Pfizer spokesman, said: “It is very disappointing to learn about Dr. Scott Reuben’s alleged actions.”

3) Drugmakers have surpassed every other industry when it comes to defrauding the US government, according to a new analysis by Public Citizen, which calls for stiffer penalies and increased criminal prosecution of pharma execs.

The findings: Of 165 settlements comprising $19.8 billion in penalties during the past 20 years, 73 percent of the settlements and 75 percent of the penalties - representing $14.8 billion - have occurred in just the past five years. And four drugmakers - GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, and Merck’s Schering-Plough -accounted for 53 percent, or $10.5 billion, of all financial penalties.