Thank here then this will be a
reason presentation full of
excitement as you see and that
time here today the highest point of my
resume certainly serve
reference to ana that joined this
wonderful people here discussing ideas
sharing stories right
so I’m very proud to be
part of this event today and my
question for you is I wanted
whether hardly surprising to
you that medical guidelines that I
I’m a doctor to change from year to year
right so often
I would because it happens and I
I’ll start telling a story to
you
to try to explain my point of
view and then share with you
this idea will start counting
story of a vitamin Vitamin E
Vitamin A was recognized for its
and antioxidant properties
She believed she could even
prevent heart disease , and was
what an observational study in
early 90s demonstrated the
people who had high intake of
Vitamin E in your diet
I had a frequency an incidence
minor heart attack in 1996 was conducted
A clinical trial study with a group
men with cardiovascular disease
received vitamin A supplementation and
through a pill and was compared
with another similar group of men
the control group that received only realize
one result flour pill
Vitamin and reduced by almost 50% the risk
infarction
wow vitamin and it became really
1997 powerful and 44% of cardiologists
Americans already they prescribed
routinely vitamin and its
patients
However various clinical trials
later could not reproduce
cardiovascular benefits
vitamin A supplementation and that
first
study in 1996 and finally in 2005 , a
review of 19 studies published in
Medical literature 135 thousand patients
concluded that in fact the high – dose
Vitamin E increased mortality and its
use should be abandoned
you certainly know other
similar stories with other
drugs and even other vitamins
its members vitamin c
Here we could write a treatise
on the rise and fall of vitamin C.
as drugs are released
as the best or most effective or
fewer side effects in the market for
no further showing
better than drugs previously
available every week and studies
contradictory are published
regarding the association of a food
with a particular disease
without ever coming to a conclusion
Specific studies will be that the john
or uncontrolled misguided
it can even happen and cause
if you change your mind but does not seem to be
the case here if we were to make a
review of the cream of the clinical research
published in scientific journals
prestigious high impact calls
we see that only 44% or less of
half of the studies had their
reproduced results of the other 14%
They were contradicted by studies
later
Other results showed 14%
inflated and 24% had not been
never put to the test
the scientific method should be in
actually the best way to test
effectiveness of a theory I have a
hypothesis or develop idea
method to test this hypothesis
easy to study as planned and
concludes
based on evidence and the hypothesis
is held is not the way
science medicine and our
knowledge
on the nature develops what
was going on then it would be fraud
is also likely that no fraud
deliberate on science is too small
estimates that around 0.01 per
percent and never explain the profusion
results of studies not later
they are proven
what then is it seems that
answer lies in the current form of
financing and publishing research
before science
scientific journals and own
researchers prioritize results
positive
so the more positive the outcome
more likely to be published in
high-impact journal
I’ll give you an example here sd
North American agency that regulates
clinical trials between 1987 and 2004
74 reported studies on the efficacy
antidepressants 51% of studies 38
They were positive in favor of
antidepressants
all of these were published least 137
and what happened to the other 36
studies showed results
negative of these only three were
published 22 never left as such of
drawer, or of them were published
but with a different analysis
expected to show results also
positive
raciocine now with me if I have a
I am patient medical you heard the
miguel to talk and if I have a
patient are considering treat it
with antidepressant
I think I am a good doctor
I will do a literature review the
I’ll find 48 studies in favor of
antidepressant and only three
contrary there so I decided
treat my patient and I actually
I’m being lied to my patient
being cheated because I only had
access to half of the information
available on that or better
half of the information about that
medicine was not available
hard is too hard on us
understand what happens in science
because it happens in our society
also
we only privilege success
actually though each of us
know in their hearts that we learn
more from mistakes than with
hits
however , this added value applied to
Science has a disastrous effect is a
system in which only deserves to be published
those positive work creates a
incentive system that is dangerous
then does with this story
I told you guys can
actually manipulate data because what
happens is that in our in our
scientific analysis system
often the analysis is not
consensus there is more than one way to
do data analysis and for example
if I have an analysis that was
expected to develop
certain research and evaluate the
and analysis results , and Negative
if I have another analysis analysis
b that was not planned but have
a significant result or not
scientist can solve publish
analysis b is positive over
of the area that was initially planned
It uses much cent students learned
they need to counter the search
Indeed the pressure to publish
then there is an academic jargon
the ditch publish or die English
publiçor perez and that is to say
to defend his thesis student
You need to publish there and it will only take
success
if their results were
statistically significant
this also happens with the
senior researchers right they
They need to publish their work in
scientific journals of prestige
only for personal recognition but
also to obtain financing for
their research and will only have success right
in fact if its results are
positive and impactful and what of
pharmaceutical industry certainly
high profits will be achieved
demonstrate that the medicine in your
portfolio is effective so much so that
those sponsored clinical research
the pharmaceutical industry has a
chance
four times to demonstrate a
positive outcome of a medicinal product
Sponsor other studies
is independent and that when a
scientist or researcher pure vegetable garden
opt for an analysis that is beneficial
does it represent a one is a
bitchy attitude is priori
Probably not so scientists
as any of us would like to see
your hypothesis is proven and it has a
tendency to make a type of analysis
his study is to show the result
positive as it is then that we
rescues reliability in science
biomedical
you will see that the solution is
complex but already exists in some
actions or initiatives take shape
one of them is to seek to require the
organs such as the fd they
studies provide protocols
that record and all data
because we can prove to
verify that the analysis of the results
It was made as planned
Another idea is to encourage all
study published in magazines
scientific be systematically
replicated or reproduced
we need also other
platforms
weapons to promote work
scientific and the Internet is one of them
where scientists could publish
their jobs with negative results
or less impactful and also
provide the raw data your
studies to be evaluated by
other independent researchers would be
a way to reduce the damage right
the publishing bias
data manipulation we
previously commented some
scientific journals today have begun
to register job before it actually
collected used with the commitment is
the right to publish studies
whatever the results is this
will help is a change in paradigm
traditional publishing where general
the works are evaluated only after
finalized
then you need to think we
we can criticize and this system
where when one seeks at all costs
the positive result to publish or
to have recognition all lose
collectively is called tragedy of
common is this only for faces
Individual waivers initiatives
collective
starts here because a dilemma for
such as the preservation of the planet
shall be the same type of solution
so I think here as well as the
Art imitates life to science at least
that portrayed by fernando staff
fernando person in the first two
verses of his poem straight
I have never met anyone who had taken
shitload
all my acquaintances have been
champions at all
scientists are actually reticent
to discuss the reliability of research
science to the general public and
means in the world as our fled
during June by fundamentalism and
the dogmas of all kinds
the defense of the scientific method always
It has been and remains a priority
however it is necessary that we do not
We understand the results articles
scientific as another dogma
break or deconstruct the myth of
scientifically proven is
important for aa science can
ponder over it and it also
show open for questions
not to be infallible but for power
decrease inevitable that mistakes
happen just like any one of us
thank you so much
[Applause]
[Music]
reason presentation full of
excitement as you see and that
time here today the highest point of my
resume certainly serve
reference to ana that joined this
wonderful people here discussing ideas
sharing stories right
so I’m very proud to be
part of this event today and my
question for you is I wanted
whether hardly surprising to
you that medical guidelines that I
I’m a doctor to change from year to year
right so often
I would because it happens and I
I’ll start telling a story to
you
to try to explain my point of
view and then share with you
this idea will start counting
story of a vitamin Vitamin E
Vitamin A was recognized for its
and antioxidant properties
She believed she could even
prevent heart disease , and was
what an observational study in
early 90s demonstrated the
people who had high intake of
Vitamin E in your diet
I had a frequency an incidence
minor heart attack in 1996 was conducted
A clinical trial study with a group
men with cardiovascular disease
received vitamin A supplementation and
through a pill and was compared
with another similar group of men
the control group that received only realize
one result flour pill
Vitamin and reduced by almost 50% the risk
infarction
wow vitamin and it became really
1997 powerful and 44% of cardiologists
Americans already they prescribed
routinely vitamin and its
patients
However various clinical trials
later could not reproduce
cardiovascular benefits
vitamin A supplementation and that
first
study in 1996 and finally in 2005 , a
review of 19 studies published in
Medical literature 135 thousand patients
concluded that in fact the high – dose
Vitamin E increased mortality and its
use should be abandoned
you certainly know other
similar stories with other
drugs and even other vitamins
its members vitamin c
Here we could write a treatise
on the rise and fall of vitamin C.
as drugs are released
as the best or most effective or
fewer side effects in the market for
no further showing
better than drugs previously
available every week and studies
contradictory are published
regarding the association of a food
with a particular disease
without ever coming to a conclusion
Specific studies will be that the john
or uncontrolled misguided
it can even happen and cause
if you change your mind but does not seem to be
the case here if we were to make a
review of the cream of the clinical research
published in scientific journals
prestigious high impact calls
we see that only 44% or less of
half of the studies had their
reproduced results of the other 14%
They were contradicted by studies
later
Other results showed 14%
inflated and 24% had not been
never put to the test
the scientific method should be in
actually the best way to test
effectiveness of a theory I have a
hypothesis or develop idea
method to test this hypothesis
easy to study as planned and
concludes
based on evidence and the hypothesis
is held is not the way
science medicine and our
knowledge
on the nature develops what
was going on then it would be fraud
is also likely that no fraud
deliberate on science is too small
estimates that around 0.01 per
percent and never explain the profusion
results of studies not later
they are proven
what then is it seems that
answer lies in the current form of
financing and publishing research
before science
scientific journals and own
researchers prioritize results
positive
so the more positive the outcome
more likely to be published in
high-impact journal
I’ll give you an example here sd
North American agency that regulates
clinical trials between 1987 and 2004
74 reported studies on the efficacy
antidepressants 51% of studies 38
They were positive in favor of
antidepressants
all of these were published least 137
and what happened to the other 36
studies showed results
negative of these only three were
published 22 never left as such of
drawer, or of them were published
but with a different analysis
expected to show results also
positive
raciocine now with me if I have a
I am patient medical you heard the
miguel to talk and if I have a
patient are considering treat it
with antidepressant
I think I am a good doctor
I will do a literature review the
I’ll find 48 studies in favor of
antidepressant and only three
contrary there so I decided
treat my patient and I actually
I’m being lied to my patient
being cheated because I only had
access to half of the information
available on that or better
half of the information about that
medicine was not available
hard is too hard on us
understand what happens in science
because it happens in our society
also
we only privilege success
actually though each of us
know in their hearts that we learn
more from mistakes than with
hits
however , this added value applied to
Science has a disastrous effect is a
system in which only deserves to be published
those positive work creates a
incentive system that is dangerous
then does with this story
I told you guys can
actually manipulate data because what
happens is that in our in our
scientific analysis system
often the analysis is not
consensus there is more than one way to
do data analysis and for example
if I have an analysis that was
expected to develop
certain research and evaluate the
and analysis results , and Negative
if I have another analysis analysis
b that was not planned but have
a significant result or not
scientist can solve publish
analysis b is positive over
of the area that was initially planned
It uses much cent students learned
they need to counter the search
Indeed the pressure to publish
then there is an academic jargon
the ditch publish or die English
publiçor perez and that is to say
to defend his thesis student
You need to publish there and it will only take
success
if their results were
statistically significant
this also happens with the
senior researchers right they
They need to publish their work in
scientific journals of prestige
only for personal recognition but
also to obtain financing for
their research and will only have success right
in fact if its results are
positive and impactful and what of
pharmaceutical industry certainly
high profits will be achieved
demonstrate that the medicine in your
portfolio is effective so much so that
those sponsored clinical research
the pharmaceutical industry has a
chance
four times to demonstrate a
positive outcome of a medicinal product
Sponsor other studies
is independent and that when a
scientist or researcher pure vegetable garden
opt for an analysis that is beneficial
does it represent a one is a
bitchy attitude is priori
Probably not so scientists
as any of us would like to see
your hypothesis is proven and it has a
tendency to make a type of analysis
his study is to show the result
positive as it is then that we
rescues reliability in science
biomedical
you will see that the solution is
complex but already exists in some
actions or initiatives take shape
one of them is to seek to require the
organs such as the fd they
studies provide protocols
that record and all data
because we can prove to
verify that the analysis of the results
It was made as planned
Another idea is to encourage all
study published in magazines
scientific be systematically
replicated or reproduced
we need also other
platforms
weapons to promote work
scientific and the Internet is one of them
where scientists could publish
their jobs with negative results
or less impactful and also
provide the raw data your
studies to be evaluated by
other independent researchers would be
a way to reduce the damage right
the publishing bias
data manipulation we
previously commented some
scientific journals today have begun
to register job before it actually
collected used with the commitment is
the right to publish studies
whatever the results is this
will help is a change in paradigm
traditional publishing where general
the works are evaluated only after
finalized
then you need to think we
we can criticize and this system
where when one seeks at all costs
the positive result to publish or
to have recognition all lose
collectively is called tragedy of
common is this only for faces
Individual waivers initiatives
collective
starts here because a dilemma for
such as the preservation of the planet
shall be the same type of solution
so I think here as well as the
Art imitates life to science at least
that portrayed by fernando staff
fernando person in the first two
verses of his poem straight
I have never met anyone who had taken
shitload
all my acquaintances have been
champions at all
scientists are actually reticent
to discuss the reliability of research
science to the general public and
means in the world as our fled
during June by fundamentalism and
the dogmas of all kinds
the defense of the scientific method always
It has been and remains a priority
however it is necessary that we do not
We understand the results articles
scientific as another dogma
break or deconstruct the myth of
scientifically proven is
important for aa science can
ponder over it and it also
show open for questions
not to be infallible but for power
decrease inevitable that mistakes
happen just like any one of us
thank you so much
[Applause]
[Music]
Please follow and like us: