Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - John P. A. Ioannidis Published: August 30, 2005

Robert Kennedy Jr is listening loud and clear, evidenced by his latest strike!!!

RFK Jr. threatens to bar government scientists from publishing in leading medical journals

In the article above, we learn:

“HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said medical journals have a "corrupt" alliance with drug companies.”

How wonderful is that?!

This is more evidence that the HHS Secretary is bang over the target when it comes to sorting out big pharma…

…and you couldn’t have a better endorsement than this paper by John Ioannidis:

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False - John P. A. Ioannidis Published: August 30, 2005

This is the Abstract Summary

“There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.

In this framework, a research finding is less likely to be true when the studies conducted in a field are smaller; when effect sizes are smaller; when there is a greater number and lesser preselection of tested relationships; where there is greater flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes; when there is greater financial and other interest and prejudice; and when more teams are involved in a scientific field in chase of statistical significance.

Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more likely for a research claim to be false than true. Moreover, for many current scientific fields, claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias. In this essay, I discuss the implications of these problems for the conduct and interpretation of research.”

Expert Witness enlightens us

Ray Perkins PhD, expert witness in my next book, a gifted drug researcher, alerted me to this over 6 years ago. This is how he describes it:

“Thus, the research cited in any given paper published in the last thirty years has, if we’re generous, a 50/50 chance of being reproducible - and we don’t know which is which. No one has refuted this sorry state of affairs, and no funding agency has moved seriously to correct the problem. In the context of this piece, I must also point out that since around 1990, pharma has increased its reliance on publicly funded research, cutting their early-stage research budgets and laying off tens of thousands of seasoned scientists. Concurrently, public funding for research dramatically increased, but with a serious caveat: publicly funded research would define the feed stock for industry drug development. Seasoned veterans were replaced by novice graduate students, postdocs and professors with no experience outside academia. What could go wrong?”

That is why this is such great news

The decline in pharmaceutical R&D productivity over the last several decades can be attributed, in large part, to this failure in the academic literature.

Looking forward to RFK Jr and his team continuing on this awesome path to pharmaceutical progress!!!