SEARCH:
Sign in | Join | Help
search Mercola.com
 
FREE Subscription 
The World’s Most Popular Natural Health Newsletter
Why You Can’t Trust Most Studies on Health

medical journal, health studiesAccording to a new analysis, with so many scientific papers and so few pages available in the most prestigious journals, the “winners” could be the ones most likely to oversell themselves rather than the best science. In other words, they are likely to be the ones that trumpet dramatic or important results -- results that often later turn out to be false.

Hundreds of thousands of scientific researchers are hired, promoted and funded according not only to how much work they produce, but also to where it gets published. Prestigious journals boast that they are very selective, turning down the vast majority of papers that are submitted to them. The assumption is that they therefore publish only the best scientific work.

A study of 49 papers in leading journals that had been cited by more than 1,000 other scientists -- in other words, well-regarded research -- showed that within only a few years, almost a third of the papers had been refuted by other studies. And the “hotter” the field, the greater the competition and the more likely it is that published research in top journals could be wrong.

There also seems to be a bias towards publishing positive results. A study earlier this year found that among the studies submitted to the FDA about the effectiveness of antidepressants, almost all of those with positive results were published, whereas very few of those with negative results were.

Sources:

Dr. Mercola''s Comments Dr. Mercola's Comments:

This is the second study by Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of Medicine, Greece, to show that much scientific research is highly questionable. Back in 2005 Dr. Ioannidis showed that there is less than a 50% chance that the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true.

“Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true,” according to the study.

He noted problems with experimental and statistical methods as the main culprits, including factors such as small sample sizes, poor study design, researcher bias and selective reporting. The new study, meanwhile, suggests that economic conditions, such as oligopolies, artificial scarcities and the winner’s curse, are largely to blame for incorrect research.

The author’s write:

“This essay makes the underlying assumption that scientific information is an economic commodity, and that scientific journals are a medium for its dissemination and exchange.

While this exchange system differs from a conventional market in many senses, including the nature of payments, it shares the goal of transferring the commodity (knowledge) from its producers (scientists) to its consumers (other scientists, administrators, physicians, patients, and funding agencies). The function of this system has major consequences.

Idealists may be offended that research be compared to widgets, but realists will acknowledge that journals generate revenue; publications are critical in drug development and marketing and to attract venture capital; and publishing defines successful scientific careers.”

Because of the way this system runs, journals may be more likely to publish studies that show dramatic results, positive results, or results from “hot” competitive fields. None of this, of course, has anything to do with scientific merit or accuracy.

Who Funded the Study

One of the key take homes here is to track down who financed the study. This can be challenging as many times the drug companies will fund studies through organizations they own or control but are not formally associated with.

The reason you want to do this is likely very obvious as it’s well known that studies funded by industry or conducted by researchers with industry ties tend to favor corporate interests. For instance, studies published in psychiatric journals are increasingly funded by drug companies, and the results of these studies often favor drugs.

When researchers from the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City examined four journals -- American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology -- they found drugs were favored in roughly:

• Eight out of 10 studies funded by the company that makes the drug.

• Five out of 10 studies not funded by industry.

• Three out of 10 studies conducted by competitors of the drug's maker.

So it seems only fair that disclosing these conflicts of interest would be an effective way to allow readers to judge a study’s true credibility. Yet, studies published in medical journals, even those with sterling reputations, are still suspect.

For example, the Associated Press uncovered that three authors of a study on padded hip protectors, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), had received research money from makers of bone-strengthening drugs.

Although JAMA has strict rules about financial disclosure, they maintained that the authors had done nothing wrong in not disclosing the ties because the study did not mention bone drugs, nor recommend them.

What Can You Learn From This?

When evaluating health news, it is wise to be cautious even if it’s published in a scientific journal. Remain skeptical but open -- even if it is something I am saying, you simply need to realize YOU are responsible for your and your family’s health, not me and certainly not drug companies trying to sell their wares and convince you to take dangerous strategies like flu shots.

Since it is very well established that most prescribed drugs do absolutely nothing to treat the cause of disease it would be prudent to exercise EXTREME caution when evaluating ANY new drug claim, as it will more than likely be seriously flawed or biased -- and is highly likely not in your or your family’s best long-term interest to take the drug.

So be careful out there when the media tells you about the latest and greatest in health. Carefully check out the source and research methods for yourself, and determine if it meshes with your own common sense, experience, and intuition.


Related Links:



Comment on This Article Community Comments (26)
 
 
Posted On Nov 04, 2008

It appears that studies are often designed to return negative results when it comes to vitamins, minerals and other natural items which might represent threats to the hundreds of billions of dollars of profits that mainstream drugs generate.

The latest example is the recently halted SELECT ((SELenium and vitamin ECancer prevention Trial)study funded by the National Cancer Institute.  After two previous studies indicated a remarkable effectiveness in preventing prostate cancer for both selenium and Vitamin E, the NIH designed a new and much publicized study, but then halted it when it amazingly found no benefits at all, and possibly even slight risks for increased prostate cancer as well as diabetes.

Just one catch - the form of Vitamin E used was an unnatural petroleum derived synthetic and the form of selenium was obtained from a by product of commercial ore mining.

When it comes to studies on natural alternatives to drugs, it appears that the key considerations to look at before accepting the mainstream favoring results should be:

1. Who funded the study

2. How were the study participants screened

3. What forms of supplements were used (normally the least effective and synthetic forms are used in such studies)

4. What were the dosage amounts (normally much less than a therapeutic dose is administered

and

5. Whether the items studied would represent a threat to the profits of mainstream drugs and treatments.


 
Dquixote1217
Apprentice User Apprentice User, Joined On 4/2007
Dquixote1217  
Replied

KelleyEidem
Apprentice User Apprentice User Joined On 11/2007
KelleyEidem  
 
Posted On Nov 05, 2008

"Just one catch - the form of Vitamin E used was an unnatural petroleum derived synthetic and the form of selenium was obtained from a by product of commercial ore mining."

That's great research, D Quixote! You're absolutely right, you need the proper forms of selenium and "E."

There's something else that also doomed the study results: combining Selenium with Vitamin E! That combo is just fine...if you don't have cancer. But the combo is 'dumbo' and dangerous if you do have cancer.

Here's why: Dr. Emanuel Revici discovered that cancer patients have an imbalance in their metabolism. They are either too anabolic or too catabolic. Those are opposites! Cancer patients need to balance their metabolism, so that it is neither too anabolic or too catabolic.

Well, selenium is catabolic and Vitamin E is anabolic. So it's a self-defeating combo, dooming the study to failure.

If you have cancer, you absolutely need to know which supplements are catabolic and which ones are anabolic. The wrongs ones will promote and accelerate cancer growth.

In a previous study, the right kind of selenium benefited 50% of the prostate cancer patients. The authors were oblivious to the anabolic/catabolic factor. If they had determined whether their subjects were catabolic, they could have achieved a higher success rate.

When I cured myself of Stage 4 cancer, I used the correct oil. Here is the free information so you don't make a mistake that could cost you:

itsnotjustforsex.blogspot.com/.../she-said-my-knife-piercing-pain-is.html

The best to you.

Kelley Eidem    


 
 
 
Posted On Oct 26, 2008
Back when I was a kid, my family was regular at a trailer park - some sort of weekend resort near my city. The main food eaten was BBQ - from fish, to burgers. It was convenient, tasty and everyone loved it!

But then, at the time of macrobiotics/vegetarianism/stuff emerging, an article was published in newspaper saying that the person eating BBQ meat more than once a month will surly develop cancer! It was published in spring and that summer no barbecue was smelling in the entire camp. Sad, isn't it?

Next spring, new article - BBQ helps cancer prevention?! The same newspaper, the same page (health and nutrition), the opposite advice.

 
Darinka
Novice User Novice User, Joined On 10/2008
Darinka  
 
 
 
Posted On Nov 04, 2008

I do a lot of research into the health field. As a chiropractor I want what is best for my patients. In dealing with research, most of what is easily availible is because the industries intended to make it available to the masses. I have heard many many people tell me that they researched a subject thoroughly and were completely wrong.

My advice in taking information from research is to trust only the research that has no monetary value with the results. If it is in the mainstream media, someone paid for it to be there!

Many times I am confronted by people think they have a grasp on the research. I ask them what my benefit is to give them false research. I would make more money if I told people to be on drugs that harm them. By giving people proper research I am keeping them out of my office. How does that benefit me? I get the reward of helping people live healthier lives without drugs or surgeries.


 
Matt Hasty
Novice User Novice User, Joined On 5/2008
Matt Hasty  
Replied

curious7
Savvy User Savvy User Joined On 3/2007
curious7  
 
Posted On Nov 04, 2008

Matt Hasty:

Some bad research comes out of preconceived notions, as in this is the way it is supposed to be.  Such as cooking everything we eat.  We later found that a meal comprised mostly of raw whole fruits and vegetables is best.



Matt Hasty
Novice User Novice User Joined On 5/2008
Matt Hasty  
 
Posted On Nov 05, 2008

Well said. I am just about to finish my education process, and they are still teaching neurology as if the brain does not heal, the thalamus is a relay station, and glial cells are just support cells. That is the way it is. New research shows that the brain DOES heal, The thalamus is the central integration and processing plant of all sensations, and that glial cells are adult stem cells that are constantly growing into neurons to replace dead ones and making new connections as we learn. These things would have been hippocracy one year ago, but the schools haven't changed over yet regarding the new science. (yes, this is pure science, not research)


 
 
 
Posted On Nov 04, 2008

This is why as I've said for a looong time now, you can only truly trust the information from the ancients since they had no monetary motive and they wrote down what truly worked and discarded what did not work.

It's NO coincidence that modern medicine goes on and on about how nothing is true unless some study proves it, yet there are constantly conflicting studies out there, many are which are conflicting by design. Yet at the same time, the legitimate studies keep validating over and over again what the Ancient Chinese and many other ancient cultures have been saying for centuries and millenia.

If you really want to know the truth and get your mind out of this modern Babylon (confusion) of modern medicine then follow what the ancients did. Thousands and thousands of times already it's been proven that the ancients, especially the Chinese are correct, even after modern medicine for decades poked fun at what was said time and time again, only later to admit that they were right.

I've been doing things against what doctors, medical and scientific journals have said we should not for over two decades now by following what the Chinese have known all this time. That's why if you read up on Chinese medicine and see how the longest lived groups in the world ate and lived such as the Buddhist fighting monks of Shaolin and the Taoists you'll know exactly what you should be eating and how as well as other life extension techniques such as moderate exercises that does not tire the body out, breathing, meditation and the proper use of herbal tonic formulas to help boost immunity and increase life span. Sometimes to fantastic levels.


 
RichJedi
Savvy User Savvy User, Joined On 8/2006
RichJedi  
Replied

Ta
Novice User Novice User Joined On 11/2007
Ta  
 
Posted On Nov 04, 2008

I am a resident physician, my self search on the wholistic healthing very much reflect the Taoist system, or (Chinese, Hindu, Greek, Turkish, and etc.)  Much of our current knowledge about new science continue to further confirm the Ancient way.  If you want long life, look at what Jeanne Calment habits and food, look at the Meditarian folks, and the Okinawa folks.  Observe and learn from the healthy folks.  Don't go to a sick man for advice of health.  Don't go to a fat man for advice on losing weight.  Always be cautious about the latest research, but trust in the Ancient folks.  


 
 
 
Posted On Nov 04, 2008

This also applies to applications for promotion- the more flamboyant and entertaining papers, and those that seem to support the interviewer's own views (no matter how loosely based on fact) get precedence over those that address the basics without embellishment.

Who pays ? is perhaps the most pertinent question. If a university's primary funding is from the seed and grain concerns they will hardly approve for publication something that is against the interests of their sponsor.

And they will also likely choose an interesting read over something factual, dry, and self explanatory.


 
Heather Marsh
Apprentice User Apprentice User, Joined On 5/2008
Heather Marsh  
 
 
 
 
© Copyright 2009 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved. If you want to use this article on your site please click here. This content may be copied in full, with copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.
* These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease. If you are pregnant, nursing, taking medication, or have a medical condition, consult your physician before using this product.