Editors of world’s most prestigious medical journals say much of scientific literature may be false

Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine are the two most prestigious medical journals in the world. Stunningly, their chief editors admit that corruption is “endemic” in science, and that much of the scientific literature may simply be lies.

The Lancet first issueIn the April 11, 2015 issue of The Lancet, its Editor in Chief Dr. Richard Horton writes:

A lot of what is published is incorrect.” …much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness…. The Academy of Medical Sciences, Medical Research Council, and Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council have now put their reputational weight behind an investigation into these questionable research practices. The apparent endemicity of bad research behaviour is alarming. In their quest for telling a compelling story, scientists too often sculpt data to fit their preferred theory of the world. Or they retrofit hypotheses to fit their data. Journal editors deserve their fair share of criticism too. We aid and abet the worst behaviours. Our acquiescence…fuels an unhealthy competition to win a place in a select few journals. Our love of “significance” pollutes the literature with many a statistical fairy-tale. We reject important confirmations. Journals are not the only miscreants. Universities are in a perpetual struggle for money and talent, endpoints that foster reductive metrics, such as high-impact publication. National assessment procedures, such as the Research Excellence Framework, incentivise bad practices. And individual scientists, including their most senior leaders, do little to alter a research culture that occasionally veers close to misconduct.

After offering suggestions to “fix” the problem, Dr. Horton concludes that “The good news is that science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously. The bad news is that nobody is ready to take the first step to clean up the system.”

“Science is beginning to take some of its worst failings very seriously”?

Horton is being overly optimistic. More than 6 years ago, the editor in chief of the New England Journal of Medicine, Dr. Marcia Angell, had sounded the exact same alarm on medical science.

New England Journal of Medicine Dr. Marcia AngellWriting in the January 15, 2009 issue of The New York Review of Books, Dr. Angell warned:

[C]onflicts of interest pervade medicine…. Indeed, most doctors take money or gifts from drug companies in one way or another. Many are paid consultants, speakers at company-sponsored meetings, ghost-authors of papers written by drug companies or their agents, and ostensible “researchers” whose contribution often consists merely of putting their patients on a drug and transmitting some token information to the company. Still more doctors are recipients of free meals and other out-and-out gifts. In addition, drug companies subsidize most meetings of professional organizations and most of the continuing medical education needed by doctors to maintain their state licenses.

No one knows the total amount provided by drug companies to physicians, but I estimate from the annual reports of the top nine US drug companies that it comes to tens of billions of dollars a year. By such means, the pharmaceutical industry has gained enormous control over how doctors evaluate and use its own products. Its extensive ties to physicians, particularly senior faculty at prestigious medical schools, affect the results of research, the way medicine is practiced, and even the definition of what constitutes a disease….

A few decades ago, medical schools did not have extensive financial dealings with industry, and faculty investigators who carried out industry-sponsored research generally did not have other ties to their sponsors. But schools now have their own manifold deals with industry and are hardly in a moral position to object to their faculty behaving in the same way. A recent survey found that about two thirds of academic medical centers hold equity interest in companies that sponsor research within the same institution. A study of medical school department chairs found that two thirds received departmental income from drug companies and three fifths received personal income. In the 1980s medical schools began to issue guidelines governing faculty conflicts of interest but they are highly variable, generally quite permissive, and loosely enforced.

Because drug companies insist as a condition of providing funding that they be intimately involved in all aspects of the research they sponsor, they can easily introduce bias in order to make their drugs look better and safer than they are. Before the 1980s, they generally gave faculty investigators total responsibility for the conduct of the work, but now company employees or their agents often design the studies, perform the analysis, write the papers, and decide whether and in what form to publish the results. Sometimes the medical faculty who serve as investigators are little more than hired hands, supplying patients and collecting data according to instructions from the company.

In view of this control and the conflicts of interest that permeate the enterprise, it is not surprising that industry-sponsored trials published in medical journals consistently favor sponsors’ drugs—largely because negative results are not published, positive results are repeatedly published in slightly different forms, and a positive spin is put on even negative results. A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies were published. But of the thirty-six negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published in a form that conveyed a positive outcome….

Many drugs that are assumed to be effective are probably little better than placebos, but there is no way to know because negative results are hidden…. Clinical trials are also biased through designs for research that are chosen to yield favorable results for sponsors…. Perhaps most important, many members of the standing committees of experts that advise the FDA on drug approvals also have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry….

In recent years, drug companies have perfected a new and highly effective method to expand their markets. Instead of promoting drugs to treat diseases, they have begun to promote diseases to fit their drugs. The strategy is to convince as many people as possible (along with their doctors, of course) that they have medical conditions that require long-term drug treatment…. To promote new or exaggerated conditions, companies give them serious-sounding names along with abbreviations. Thus, heartburn is now “gastro-esophageal reflux disease” or GERD; impotence is “erectile dysfunction” or ED; premenstrual tension is “premenstrual dysphoric disorder” or PMMD; and shyness is “social anxiety disorder” (no abbreviation yet). Note that these are ill-defined chronic conditions that affect essentially normal people, so the market is huge and easily expanded….

Since there are no objective tests for mental illness and the boundaries between normal and abnormal are often uncertain, psychiatry is a particularly fertile field for creating new diagnoses or broadening old ones. Diagnostic criteria are pretty much the exclusive province of the current edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM], which is the product of a panel of psychiatrists, most of whom, as I mentioned earlier, had financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry….

Given its importance, you might think that the DSM represents the authoritative distillation of a large body of scientific evidence. But…it is instead the product of a complex of academic politics, personal ambition, ideology, and, perhaps most important, the influence of the pharmaceutical industry….

Some of the biggest blockbusters are psychoactive drugs. The theory that psychiatric conditions stem from a biochemical imbalance is used as a justification for their widespread use, even though the theory has yet to be proved. Children are particularly vulnerable targets…. We are now in the midst of an apparent epidemic of bipolar disease in children (which seems to be replacing attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder as the most publicized condition in childhood), with a forty-fold increase in the diagnosis between 1994 and 2003. These children are often treated with multiple drugs off-label, many of which, whatever their other properties, are sedating, and nearly all of which have potentially serious side effects.

Dr. Angell dolefully concluded that:

The problems I’ve discussed are not limited to psychiatry, although they reach their most florid form there. Similar conflicts of interest and biases exist in virtually every field of medicine, particularly those that rely heavily on drugs or devices. It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.

Writing for ZeroHedge on June 1, 2015, George Washington points out that all of this is exacerbated by the federal government using its “raw power to cover up corruption in the medical and scientific fields.”

Washington concludes with the warning that “Corruption is not limited to the medical or scientific fields. Instead, corruption has become systemic throughout every profession … and is so pervasive that it is destroying the very fabric of America.”



9 responses to “Editors of world’s most prestigious medical journals say much of scientific literature may be false

  1. Reblogged this on Fellowship of the Minds and commented:
    We are awash in corruption, not just in politics and culture, but also in science, esp. medical science that is utterly corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry.

    Did you know that as many as 20% of Americans (1 out of every 5) are on psychoactive or mood-altering drugs for depression, anxiety, ADHD, bipolar disorder and the like?

    Bottom line: Any prescription medication is serious stuff and should be taken with caution. Talk to a trusted physician. With the ubiquity of information on the Internet, do your research. And, most important of all, take charge of your health by eating right, exercising, and eschewing vices. See our Health, Finance, Security page for tips.


  2. Richard Raymond

    If you think this article is scary (and it is) combine it with this one:

    Liked by 1 person

  3. This is shocking . . . it just goes to show us that the old adage of “follow the money trail is certainly correct.” I read somewhere that children who have taken prescriptions for ADHD cannot ever be issued a license by the Feds that would allow them to fly an airplane. The indiscriminate use of prescription medications can have lifelong repercussions.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. SapphireSunday

    Do you imagine that even one of the mass shooters (Loughner, Holmes, Klebold, Harris, Lanza, etc.) was NOT on psychoactive prescription drugs? Do they not publicize this in order to protect the drug companies and their shareholders? We can almost peg the epidemic of these shootings to the proliferation of these psychiatric drugs, which they admit can cause violent behavior and suicidal/homicidal thoughts.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. I have proven mathematically, to incredibly high levels of statistical significance, that biological psychiatry is based on a egregious scientific error: no scientist ever would believe that correlation proves causation. Yet the field of biological psychiatry uses that false premise nearly every time — if not every time.
    With just 27 patients with serious disorders, who also had one sibling less than 3 years younger, the 13 with psychoses had a sibling less than 24 months younger, and the 14 with non-psychotic depression had the sibling between 24 and 34 months younger. This is like tossing a coin 27 times and calling it correctly each time, or one over two to the 27th power. Even a ten-year-old child can do the math: 1/2 to the 27th power is one chance in 134,217,728 by chance alone.
    This is just delayed PTSD from infancy. Separation from mother is more overwhelming than war trauma to a soldier because for as long as mammals populated the earth, separation from mother has meant death. Then instead of a loud noise precipitating the flashback, it is a separation from some other “most important person that precipitates the initial step back in time, and instead of combat reality and behavior it is infant reality and behavior that we see.. This is why onset most often occurs in adolescence, when a first romance fails.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s