just because it was developed in a lab
doesn’t mean it’s good for you
welcome to watchmojo.com and today we’re
counting down our picks for the top five
terrifying Big Pharma facts before we
begin we publish new content every day
so be sure to subscribe to our channel
and ring the bell to get notified about
our latest videos let’s get one thing
straight
we live in an age of medical marvels and
pharmaceutical research has undoubtedly
saved and changed the lives of countless
individuals but wherever there’s money
involved the top priority is usually
profit margins and making sales so we’re
peeling off the label and reading the
fine print as we explore the darker side
of Big Pharma
number 5 pharmaceutical trials don’t
necessarily test the important stuff
there’s a problematic question one needs
to ask when administering receiving or
considering any sort of medical
treatment does this approach address the
root cause of the problem or just the
symptoms that stem from it according to
a 2015 John Hopkins University study
various drugs used to treat diabetes
have been proven to lower blood sugar
quite effectively but are often brought
to market on those grounds alone such
trials approved by the FDA failed to
consider whether a drug that reduces
high blood sugar a symptom of diabetes
will necessarily reduce the long term
effects associated with the disease such
as strokes to borrow the words of dr.
Mark Hyman quote it’s like taking the
batteries out of a smoke detector
instead of trying to find the fire
treating surrogate symptoms can prove a
deadly approach to medicine number 4
many clinical trials go unpublished
often the critical ones sad reality is
at the end of the day people are only
interested in results and the
pharmaceutical industry is no exception
but when it comes to research intended
to evaluate the effectiveness of a
particular drug a lack of results should
never be ignored
sadly according to Ian Chalmers
co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration
the standard publication and peer review
system used to share medical research
contains an inherent bias that results
in roughly half of all clinical trial
findings going unpublished of trials
resulting in positive correlations 73%
are published for those with negative or
neutral findings only 41% if you’re
testing a certain drug and come
with no proof of the desired effect that
might be statistically insignificant but
it also speaks volumes about the
effectiveness of the product number
three after the trials we hardly
evaluate drug effectiveness
all right so during the clinical trial
phase we tend to overwhelmingly report
the good news about a potential drug
while tests undermining its efficacy are
casually swept under the rug but surely
once everyone starts taking the drug
specialists and GPS will quickly notice
if the drug is ineffective
sadly no think about it if your doctor
prescribes you a medication and it
doesn’t work you try something else but
what if that’s happening to everyone
according to Marni Meharry a surgeon
best-selling author and advocate for
greater transparency in the medical
system there was no system in place for
measuring the performance of a drug
across the board once it gets approved
unless serious previously unreported
side effects show up second thought is
never given to the drugs actual
effectiveness beyond the trial period
number two pharmaceutical trials
cherry-picked test subjects we’ve
already talked about the publication
bias but what about the participant bias
you yes you can theoretically
participate in clinical trials but
what’s the criteria must you be a
nonsmoker have perfect vision fall into
the ideal BMI range and have essentially
no medical history worth mentioning
pharmaceutical trials can’t lie about
their numbers but they can limit their
tests to the ideal demographics in order
to get the best results according to a
2009 study published in the American
Journal of Psychiatry less than one in
four people taking citalopram a common
antidepressant would have actually been
eligible for the clinical trials behind
it women are often underrepresented or
excluded entirely from trials which has
historically resulted in many unforeseen
complications when the drug was later
prescribed to them number one
pharmaceutical sponsored studies result
in more favorable findings and so we
come full circle back to the almighty
dollar clinical trials aren’t cheap no
scientific research is but sadly all too
often only those parties with a vested
interest in the outcome of the research
are willing to foot the bill again
researchers aren’t going to falsify
their results but research teams running
trials spawn
by pharmaceutical companies have been
found to statistically yield results in
favor of the company’s interest more so
than their financially independent
counterparts according to Lisa Barrow
co-chair of the Cochrane Collaboration
it’s no small difference she claims that
an industry funded study is more likely
to produce positive results by a margin
of 30% furthermore a 2010 review study
published by German science journal
deutsches ATS diblock international
found evidence that companies influenced
study protocols in favor of their
desired outcome do you agree with our
picks check out these other great clips
from WatchMojo and be sure to subscribe
and ring the bell to be notified about
our latest videos
[Music] you
doesn’t mean it’s good for you
welcome to watchmojo.com and today we’re
counting down our picks for the top five
terrifying Big Pharma facts before we
begin we publish new content every day
so be sure to subscribe to our channel
and ring the bell to get notified about
our latest videos let’s get one thing
straight
we live in an age of medical marvels and
pharmaceutical research has undoubtedly
saved and changed the lives of countless
individuals but wherever there’s money
involved the top priority is usually
profit margins and making sales so we’re
peeling off the label and reading the
fine print as we explore the darker side
of Big Pharma
number 5 pharmaceutical trials don’t
necessarily test the important stuff
there’s a problematic question one needs
to ask when administering receiving or
considering any sort of medical
treatment does this approach address the
root cause of the problem or just the
symptoms that stem from it according to
a 2015 John Hopkins University study
various drugs used to treat diabetes
have been proven to lower blood sugar
quite effectively but are often brought
to market on those grounds alone such
trials approved by the FDA failed to
consider whether a drug that reduces
high blood sugar a symptom of diabetes
will necessarily reduce the long term
effects associated with the disease such
as strokes to borrow the words of dr.
Mark Hyman quote it’s like taking the
batteries out of a smoke detector
instead of trying to find the fire
treating surrogate symptoms can prove a
deadly approach to medicine number 4
many clinical trials go unpublished
often the critical ones sad reality is
at the end of the day people are only
interested in results and the
pharmaceutical industry is no exception
but when it comes to research intended
to evaluate the effectiveness of a
particular drug a lack of results should
never be ignored
sadly according to Ian Chalmers
co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration
the standard publication and peer review
system used to share medical research
contains an inherent bias that results
in roughly half of all clinical trial
findings going unpublished of trials
resulting in positive correlations 73%
are published for those with negative or
neutral findings only 41% if you’re
testing a certain drug and come
with no proof of the desired effect that
might be statistically insignificant but
it also speaks volumes about the
effectiveness of the product number
three after the trials we hardly
evaluate drug effectiveness
all right so during the clinical trial
phase we tend to overwhelmingly report
the good news about a potential drug
while tests undermining its efficacy are
casually swept under the rug but surely
once everyone starts taking the drug
specialists and GPS will quickly notice
if the drug is ineffective
sadly no think about it if your doctor
prescribes you a medication and it
doesn’t work you try something else but
what if that’s happening to everyone
according to Marni Meharry a surgeon
best-selling author and advocate for
greater transparency in the medical
system there was no system in place for
measuring the performance of a drug
across the board once it gets approved
unless serious previously unreported
side effects show up second thought is
never given to the drugs actual
effectiveness beyond the trial period
number two pharmaceutical trials
cherry-picked test subjects we’ve
already talked about the publication
bias but what about the participant bias
you yes you can theoretically
participate in clinical trials but
what’s the criteria must you be a
nonsmoker have perfect vision fall into
the ideal BMI range and have essentially
no medical history worth mentioning
pharmaceutical trials can’t lie about
their numbers but they can limit their
tests to the ideal demographics in order
to get the best results according to a
2009 study published in the American
Journal of Psychiatry less than one in
four people taking citalopram a common
antidepressant would have actually been
eligible for the clinical trials behind
it women are often underrepresented or
excluded entirely from trials which has
historically resulted in many unforeseen
complications when the drug was later
prescribed to them number one
pharmaceutical sponsored studies result
in more favorable findings and so we
come full circle back to the almighty
dollar clinical trials aren’t cheap no
scientific research is but sadly all too
often only those parties with a vested
interest in the outcome of the research
are willing to foot the bill again
researchers aren’t going to falsify
their results but research teams running
trials spawn
by pharmaceutical companies have been
found to statistically yield results in
favor of the company’s interest more so
than their financially independent
counterparts according to Lisa Barrow
co-chair of the Cochrane Collaboration
it’s no small difference she claims that
an industry funded study is more likely
to produce positive results by a margin
of 30% furthermore a 2010 review study
published by German science journal
deutsches ATS diblock international
found evidence that companies influenced
study protocols in favor of their
desired outcome do you agree with our
picks check out these other great clips
from WatchMojo and be sure to subscribe
and ring the bell to be notified about
our latest videos
[Music] you
Please follow and like us: