Blog 13- Why do people face Bad Science?

 Why do people face Bad Science?

What is it makes us face bad science? Ben's duty as an epidemiologist is to utilize facts and research to determine what is healthy for the body. Newspaper headlines, for example, categorize items that raise or decrease cancer risk — and occasionally contradict themselves by declaring coffee to be in both categories. The focus of this lecture is on how evidence may be altered through deceit or ignorance.

Bad science makes use of authority — individuals or experts – while disregarding the facts they provide. The weight of argument or evidence, rather than who says it, should carry good science.

Ben's duty as an epidemiologist is to utilize facts and research to determine what is healthy for the body. Newspaper headlines, for example, categorize items that raise or decrease cancer risk — and occasionally contradict themselves by declaring coffee to be in both category
ies. The focus of this lecture is on how evidence may be altered through deceit or ignorance.

Bad science makes use of authority — individuals or experts – while disregarding the facts they provide. The weight of argument or evidence, rather than who says it, should carry good science. It's simple to create authority status - TV physicians may add a PHD to their name or sign up for higher certification online.

Evidence can also be muddled: a newspaper headline claimed that red wine lowers the incidence of breast cancer. The research from which this information was obtained focused at a single molecule isolated from grape skins combating cancer cells in a petri dish — it has no application outside of this situation. Wine's alcohol level, in fact, raises your cancer risk.

Another research found that those who consume olive oil and veggies have less wrinkles. People who ate olive oil and veggies had less wrinkles, but they were also wealthier, more educated, did less physical labour, smoked less, and drank less, according to the research. These other elements played a far bigger role in the absence of creases.

One of the foundations of epidemiology is the medical trial, which should be the basis for a doctor's judgments, yet many individuals still get it wrong.

• Instead of using a control group, a study of fish oil pills in schoolchildren compared their findings to a projection of their outcomes from a year ago.
• The placebo effect is a powerful impact, however new treatments should be tested against the existing best therapies rather than a placebo. We would never recommend a placebo, so seeing how a medication compares to the best rivals is far more relevant.
• New medicines can be compared to a rival who isn't dosed properly. They can, for example, show that they are more effective by taking the alternative at too low a dose. They can also show they have fewer adverse effects by taking a large dose of the competitor's medication.

As a result, industry-sponsored studies are four times more likely than independent trials to provide favorable results. However, even if the industry's study is conducted appropriately, unfavorable data might go missing. Statistics may be used to investigate this, as typical data produces a mixture of false positives and false negatives, as well as a few big trials with low error. Small false negatives will not be seen if data has been concealed; the worst outcomes will be the greatest low error trials. Ben talks about a drug he's recommended to patients, and he discovers that 75% of the trials were never published.

 

Reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4MhbkWJzKk&feature=emb_title