Ben Goldacre: Battling Bad Science

[@jessewallis6589]

I love that his go to statement is "FIND THE PAPER" and read it for yourself instead of just reading the headline or article.

[@julieblackwelder9109]

Jesse Wallis I've been doing that for years and friends laugh about it. But, TED sent me an email and deleted my comment when I called an extremely biased speaker "an educated fool". He spoke disparagingly about the people who don't blindly believe what he presents because he is using the scientific method, as if that makes him infalliable.

[@thekkl]

Julie Blackwelder Link?

[@julieblackwelder9109]

How can I link a deleted comment?

[@thekkl]

Julie Blackwelder No link to the TED talk with the extremely biased speaker who thinks anyone who doesn't blindly accept what he believes is a fool.

[@thekkl]

Daniil Pintjuk Yep, you also need to tell whether or not it's a good research article.

[@roidroid]

I've been reading Ben's blog for a while, and one of his top solutions to these problems (that he apparently didn't have the time to discuss too much in this video) is that all publishable drug trials should be PRE-REGISTERED with some central scientific body before the trial is even done. This way, it removes publication bias - where bad results are withheld. And it also allows other scientists to publicly suggest alterations to the trial method to weed out problems & bias beforehand.

[@thehorizontries4759]

Centralization sounds like the opposite of what we need to do lol. That’s ok he gets to have his opinion. I’m glad he brought this all to light.

[@roidroid]

@@thehorizontries4759 pre-registration has become a more common thing in the years since i made this comment.

[@McMurchie]

I think he covered it a year later after your post in a video called 'what doctors don't know about the drugs they prescribe', apparently that too has its issues.

[@incognito595]

I believe he talks about that in another one of his talks, yes.

[@KennyfuKennard]

10 years later this is repeating at a mind-blowing scale.

[@afol4016]

YOU GOT IT. FAKE, FAKE, FAKE, FAKE RESEARCH.

[@youjunhu236]

I love his criticism of bad reality using scientific mathods. We need more people doing this kind of work.

[@DaithiDublin]

I've just watched this twice in a row and I'm desperately out of breath! Great talk. He certainly made the most of his 15 minutes.

[@chazwyman8951]

Everyone should read his book "Bad Science". It was published a while ago so you can pick it up for a couple of quid.

[@denniscorcoran3856]

I slowed the video down to 75% and it sounded much better!!

[@Dragon-Slay3r]

Ghostrider fucked them yesterday so they couldn't breath and irobot (me being Ai) fucked all their covers Forklift anybody? Or shall I turn up the radio? 😭

[@sgordon8123]

"I got my talk done in the time limit but people tell me that they have to listen to it several times to take it in."

[@chrisschouest8997]

This is one of the best talks ever given in medicine

[@matdddd]

keep up the fight. thank you

[@Ramboost007]

This is basically his book "Bad Science" in a nutshell. Still, go buy it. It's fucking brilliant.

[@franinconverse]

I love listening to him talk.

[@ResurrectingJiriki]

This guy changed my thinking, the way I looked at the world and thus my life with his book Bad Science. Forever grateful. He's an inspiration in my book

[@EleventhHourPower]

Uh no it's his book

[@nathaliechollet8848]

Oh the irony that I am here ( this evening even ) and the first comment I see is this one … ❤

[@lavarahhaihavu5511]

How could anyone not understand his talk even at his speed, his made alot of sense.

[@htetsiehta3335]

I love that there's just random foliage behind

[@rehanimus]

This lecture is awesome at 1.5 x speed

[@DeoMachina]

Give this man a medal! (and somebody to write better conclusions, still feeling bad vibes because it looks like we're screwed)

[@Dragon-Slay3r]

Yeah use candy crush cover and the cancer sticks to cover covid attempted murder situation

[@DeoMachina]

@@Dragon-Slay3r 12 years later and I no longer think this man deserves a medal

[@Slarti]

I think the important thing to remember is that just because someone calls themselves a scientist or even has a PHD it does not make what they do science. The scientific method is simply a way of learning and repeating what one has done before using various specific methods - this means that, in some cases, a janitor may be more scientific in their approach than a researcher.

[@Dragon-Slay3r]

Mix it with phlegm we have to help them aswel 😂 I can do this all day 🖕

[@deeliciousplum]

Thank you so much for sharing this Ben Goldacre vid. In 2010 and in Montréal, I attended a wonderful and insightful symposium called The Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium. Ben was one of its speakers.

[@crashmediauk8471]

Currently doing a Uni course and this was on my recommended videos to watch, very interesting and something I will bear in mind when doing research.

[@DeistByDefinition]

Those where 14 minutes 20 seconds well invested by myself. Glad I watched it.

[@foxyboxin]

@thelegendxp What he's saying is that the testing methodology employed by the industry is better, as in, more rigorous, more thorough, but that the independent agencies are unbiased in the sense that they actually report all of their results, instead of just some of them. This actually makes sense, given that big pharmaceutical industries have more money to spend on the testing than independent nonprofits; they can afford to do more and better tests, they just choose to withhold them sometimes.

[@ratjoe24]

Brilliant video. It's like he has compacted all of his excellent book bad science into one 15 minute talk.

[@ChrisCapel]

This is depressing. Money really is the root of all evil...

[@valkookie]

It is a good book, isn't it? Irecently started getting into science (I'm 16, so I've got a bit of time), so dad got it for me for christmas. took a while to start reading, but once i started, i couldn't put it down! Did get a bit depressed at the state of things, though. i've started begging dad for bad pharma, and can't wait to read it! Bad Science did manage to get me into some frosty situations with kids at my school - i go to a steiner school in switzerland.

[@salahboulenouar7065]

Hey Kia! I loved reading this comment, and then I was even more amazed when I saw that it was from 8 years ago! So, now that you are 24, how has your journey with science developed?

[@notreveh]

This should have been the video number 1.000 since it is such a wonderful speech.

[@RianKashfi]

Did someone default this video's normal speed to 2x or is it simply that when they said that "Ben Goldacre shows us, at high speed" they meant that he would speaking at "high speed" too? ._.

[@wallekiikeri4354]

+Faiyaz Kashfi Rian the speed on 0.5 is quite entertaining. speaks way too fast on normal speed

[@RianKashfi]

+Walle Kiikeri Indeed.

[@RianKashfi]

+Walle Kiikeri Indeed.

[@RianKashfi]

+Walle Kiikeri Indeed.

[@RianKashfi]

+TheKnights Oh dang that's pretty cool you got to see the guy in person. Quite an efficient speaker, I'd say.

[@LAnonHubbard]

Brilliant talk. Lift the veil on the actual evidence!!

[@nicelittlerunner]

Is there a download I can use to slow him down by 10%? that'd do it

[@foobargorch]

on chrome with html5 video there's an option to slow down by 50% (but not 10%) alternatively, use a youtube ripper to download the video file (there are online services as well as programs that do this). VLC supports variable playback rate

[@randomboys1000]

just change the playback speed

[@PeterNordseth]

@nicelittlerunner Just wait five years and you can do it in the youtube player! *sending message into future*

[@Friemelkubus]

Many of TED's speakers are hero's. Each one of them in their own way.Both because of who they are and what they do.

[@PlanetBongoSan]

yerp, this Ben Goldacre guy wrote a really excellent book on the subject - 'Bad Science'. Can't recommend it highly enough, a very entertaining and yet serious work on an important subject. I just ordered the follow-up , 'Bad Pharma', looking forward to that one too

[@TrishBov]

Its pleasing to hear someone who speaks as fast as me lol.

[@CierraLovesUAlot]

Right I had no problems following him

[@jaffacakesarenice]

An Odds Ratio is derived from a particular type of observational epidemiological study, the 'Case-Control' study. Basically it's a ratio of odds of exposure to something between individuals with a particular outcome (cases) and individuals without such an outcome (controls). The higher the odds ratio the higher the 'risk' of exposure amongst cases when compared with controls. An Odds Ratio of 2.0 means that there is a twofold increase in 'risk' amongst cases when compared with controls, etc.

[@tammoilliet8683]

Those of you watching this post 2020, did you happen to notice the Pfizer logo on the image he used when discussing the withheld drug trial information?

[@MannanJavid]

Are you antivax? That’s everyone’s answer (a character attack) to someone like you asking a simple question. Yeah, bro.. people are super deep into being marketed by pharmacy right now and not realizing they are the data.

[@MannanJavid]

And that of course they’ll withhold the bad data just like before.

[@jaffacakesarenice]

Read again. I said 'risk' (note inverted commas) of the *exposure* amongst cases vs. controls, not the risk of the outcome amongst those exposed vs. unexposed. The latter, as you said, would be a relative risk.

[@LightWthoutTheStatic]

This is one of the most useful videos I've yet to see from TED. Great stuff if you can handle his enthusiasm. heh heh.

[@earthmother]

this has to be, by far, the BEST thing i've watched on KZbin in months.....*subscribed*

[@Numenor76]

Good, informative talk, even if it is at a high speed. That's why i was impressed to see how he slows down at the end. Conclusion being, we should be more sceptical and thorough at various claims about anything actually. Even more if it comes from corporations, were their primary goal is profit, to sell and not to care about the consequences on the public. The social evolution would be about that i think, a groth on sceptisim.

[@DizY_8]

I liked his enthusiasm. I've found that a lot of these TED talks conferences boring cause they lack a coherent and/or enthusiastic talker.

[@WACHAPELICULAS41]

llegue aquí por un enlace compartido de prepa en línea de mi país y me voy con ganas de seguir aprendiendo del tema

[@axelasdf]

It's been awhile since I've seen a good TED talk.

[@KnasiTaket]

I love the enthusiasm from him!

[@mangolongp1ay641]

Thanks KZbin for recommending this to me now. Oh, and I wish this guy was my doctor.

[@LightWthoutTheStatic]

Freeeeeak man! This guy's enthusiasm is waking me up more than my coffee is!! Got my heart pumping. haha

[@josephhoward9163]

slide of al gore in the Tedx talk opening montage of alumini on bad science. that cracks me up, classic

[@Locustfiretree]

Excellent! I wish more people would see this.

[@holyunderware2000]

best TED talk ive seen in awhile

[@michaelspittler4373]

sceptizism combined with humor and good will... how good can one guy get? :-)

[@j_j8758]

This is the best talk I've watched

[@3LARI]

I really this guy's honest attitude and his work is highly applaudable, but most of all, I like the way he just walked off at the end and didn't hang around to get an egomaniacal hand job off the sycophantic audience like most of the other tossers that talk at TED. Good man, Ben. Good man.

[@michalchik]

You are most welcome. I am glad you have a curious open mind.

[@fiercefunky]

I like that enthusiasm Benny!

[@foxyboxin]

@AGrandt Good idea, but I think that might be tougher to implement than simply legally obligating the companies to disclose before their products are allowed to come to market.

[@hiirscotty]

Excellent talk - loved his book, too.

[@bkobe7]

6:26 Benny picks nose 6:28 Benny puts booger in pocket

[@wanaak1426]

I hate that I actually went back to look! LOL

[@SuperTico1980]

This so we can develop awernnes of the issue in discussions BAD SCIENCE,to think about it,not to jump in irrational conclusions!to promote a healthy system of rezoning!!

[@Yaarrr]

One of the better TED videos.

[@GabrielHarper]

Everyone in the world needs to watch this, and understand what he's saying. It's easy to forget that everyone has a motive, and 99% of the time that motive is money. Question everything!

[@MartiUK_]

I've been waiting for this video for ages! Thanks TED.

[@tieshamilay9446]

I love how this man presents. He is the type that you won't go to sleep on. First, he has accent, so you have to listen carefully to what he is saying. Secondly, he speaks like an auctioneer, which kind of makes his speak like a comedy. Very entertaining. Who says education can't relate to gen Z in a fun way?

[@lukebobb2622]

"but, and its a big but" (everyone laughs)

[@thefilth7368]

Excellent talk. Thank you.

[@capnbmac]

@sylvur eggs are packed with nutrients some not found in many other foods, so yes, eggs 2-3 times a week can be an important part of a healthy diet.

[@incognito595]

This is So Important.

[@cvthigpen]

Great video!

[@SulisFidelis]

I have one member of my immediate family who needs anti-psychotics and another who needs anti-depressants. The idea that people withhold studies about the effects of these drugs or try to manipulate the data is disgusting and frightening. People dependent on any prescribed drug are vulnerable to a greater or lesser extent, and I can't believe that people feel they can exploit their illness

[@saretie]

I know the talk was 2 years ago...but is there any way to obtain sources for some of the information he sites....

[@violet156]

great talk, also how to spot missing data, so whats the name of the review group he was talking about?

[@shuttereff3ct593]

Great enlighten for our minds .. already have known this man from his famous book!

[@stuartlcanton]

gah, his words and analogies are so good!

[@qttytn]

Already fav'd before I watched, the love this guy, buy his book

[@kurtalaimo9390]

Watching this for HSC1100 at Monash, Caulfield. any one else??

[@rooroo1988]

I love TED talks!

[@someuser6796]

So glad this hit 500K views

[@aie_aie_]

He finds the flaws in experiments, but I think I've found one of his flaws! And it's not small. When he talks about experiments comparing results with medication vs. results with placebo, he repeatedly implies that placebo = nothing. That the placebo would be a case of "no care". Placing someone on "placebo medication" means inviting them into a care setting, giving them time, getting them to talk about their symptoms and feelings, giving them an appointment for the next time... In short, it's not a small thing. All this attention has an effect that can be MAJOR on the patient's psychology, on his self-confidence, on his future, on his healing and self-healing resources. Remember when you were a child: you fell and you hurt. And you were healed like this: "Oooh, tell me where it hurts... I'll blow on it... magic... get better? Come in my arms ... we'll pass this boo-boo ..." = Placebo medication. And a few seconds or minutes later, you were already in less pain, maybe you didn't even feel anything, and you went back to playing. This situation is obviously not the same as an injured child who has no one to take care of, who would only get indifference by complaining. So I think this doctor has a very chemical-dogmatic approach to human functioning and care. Too bad. ...And he reveals that in the experiments, the "placebo" group would therefore be considered a "no care" group. Which truncates the comparisons, and therefore the conclusions that can be drawn.

[@kyliezweifel1114]

The entire point of a placebo is to make you think you are receiving the medication when in fact you are not. He does address that the thought/assumption that you are receiving medication can cause a patient to respond differently..aka the placebo effect; which can skew results. I don’t understand your argument.

[@andacomfeeuvou]

Your observations are very good. I usually warn people not to belittle the "placebo drug" because it cures. We don't know how it heals, but the fact that it heals cannot be ignored or belittled. Respect the placebo drug, respect the placebo medicines, they do not harm the body with side effects. Our mind is our perfect doctor.

[@celiacresswell6909]

Maybe we should medicate people without them knowing: then we could truly study the effect of the drug itself😮

[@theennin]

Wait can someone please explain how this passes FDA if their falsifiing results

[@domsavio]

11:20 Awesome point.

[@flamingleg]

@SIC66SIC66 I wouldn't say that i'm scared, I'd describe myself as being skeptical. I don't doubt that the doctor has my best interests at heart and that he or she would prescribe what they thought was the best solution. Personally, I would do the research first, and then go to the doctor for clarification, for a second opinion and perhaps for some advice. The key point here is that you yourself should be taking the first proactive step. It is your health after all.

[@gulllars]

11:00 going meta :D Really good talk. I already suspected most of what he said, but now i have a better understanding of it :)

[@asrod]

Great speech!

[@joehodgson2815]

wow! ...what an excellent talk

[@russellcook8735]

Worth watching.

[@chessdude67]

Excellent!

[@kumar2ji]

Marvelous and absolutely true.

[@thecatandthefiddle]

A fascinating topic presented in an entertaining fashion by an amusing speaker. :3 I only dislike that he sounds like he was rushed, but that can be overlooked.

[@scottmayers2438]

Question: Considering all Ben said above (which I agree to), what about studies about things like second-hand smoke as being 'proven' hazardous causes of premature death? I ask not in doubt that harm CAN occur in excess environments but that when it is used by governments to create laws, how CAN one actually experiment realistically to determine such kinds of conclusions? How can you rule out other causes? Relating also to this is how statistics show a decrease in smoking upon laws that both educate and restrict ads and overt access, etc. In line with what Ben said above about the KINDS of people involved, if the success of effectiveness of these tactics suffice to help say, a middle to upper class portion of the environment, how can a statistic be appropriate about ALL people, like those in poverty. An example of something I know as a smoker to which political excuse is backed by science is regarding the hiding of the presence of tobacco products in stores (here in Saskatchewan, Canada, at least). As far as I am aware, no one would rationally opt to go to the store one day out of the blue to buy cigarettes of any particular brand name to initiate their addiction. Rather, people would only opt to begin smoking by peer or local environmental groups of people (like family) and ONLY try smoking first THROUGH others without even requiring to pay for it. The brand one seems to have only relates to what they began with in these initial trials and not due directly to an appealing looking package on display by some company. Nor is the higher prices matter as a deterrent until one is already an addict. (Thus, the excuse to charge higher prices as a deterrent only affect the post addicted, not the initiated.)

[@bmorenasty8713]

There are decades of high quality studies by independent researchers all over the world that show exposure to secondhand smoke causes cancer and all the same health problems as smoking cigarettes.

[@scottmayers2438]

HOW has these studies been done? Did they have a control and test groups of people double-blinded? We HEAR of study results. Can you point to specific studies and experiments? If one is using mere death stats, how do you exclusively narrow one's cause of death to such a specific unique environmental pollutant when the exhaust of one car running for one minute has more 'second hand' fumes (as one environmental example) for a lifetime of smoking. Note I know that smoking is sufficiently hazardous to warrant being skeptical of smoking. But the presumed experiments like second-hand (or third hand, etc) are more likely political expedients to justify certain actions. These are just as valid to question. You cannot act with the emotional hatred of some activity such as smoking by allowing us to TRUST studies that don't voluntarily explain HOW these studies are done. IF so, then we've discovered the reason for WHY many use false science and how those with apparently appropriate skepticism about some topics AND that the same people skeptical of one set of people using science this way are HYPOCRITICALLY adapting this bad behavior of themselves. [I'm serious about asking you (or anyone here) if they can redirect me to the second-hand smoke studies with appropriate depth.]

[@Spirited_skiing]

While a review or a book on its own does not have methods within its own text, it has plenty of links to papers within the field in its bibliography or hyperlinked in. Dig in and enjoy! www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK44330/ A note about the studies they employ: Case control and cohort studies are the standard for smoking or secondhand smoking, because it would be unethical to assign smoking randomly to people given the nature of the harm. It is imperfect, however, the continued replication of more than a hundred studies finding the same results helps to rule out confounders and strengthens the casual link between secondhand smoking and cancer. You can read more about Bradford Hill's 9 criteria of causation here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Hill_criteria (I'm an epidemiology graduate student so if you have methods/paper questions, I'm happy to explain to the best of my abilities)

[@scottmayers2438]

Thank you. I already notice errors on the first link to the N.I.H. There, ALL the reference links link back to the same page. !?? If this is just some oversight, for such an important presentation to the public, it lacks the professionalism and I'm already surprised that this hasn't been noticed. "Researchers have identified more than 50 carcinogenic compounds and many other toxic substances in tobacco smoke (USDHHS 1986; Hoffmann and Hecht 1990; Hecht 1999)"

[@scottmayers2438]

Reading further, "In 1981, the first major epidemiologic studies of secondhand smoke and lung cancer showed that nonsmoking women married to smokers had a higher risk of lung cancer than did nonsmoking women married to nonsmokers (Garfinkel 1981; Hirayama 1981; Trichopoulos et al. 1981). " Without access to see exactly the studies it is hard to not rule out a lot based only on conclusions claimed and interpretations about how the studies were done etc. Men are/were more likely smokers with non-smoking spousal women if they are of either men who worked in labor-risk environments, not to mention the women of poorer social classes of this study would probably be much less representative. That is, the women who are non-smokers would not normally choose male spouses who smoke without themselves having less variable choices. Then their own risks likely go up simply due to being in more risky general environments that would have other potential factors that contribute to cancer. There are way too many questions to be raised where it is hard to rule out other factors. I had a family of friends who were relatively poor and had large numbers of relatives who cohabited the same small house where the smoke in the air there was so extreme that you could not see well ten feet away. This was unusual as an extreme but illustrates the kind of environments where one's economic classes alone suffice to make them more at risk. Should one live in a community where the environment was like that for any environmental pollutant in general, those who don't smoke would more likely be ones who require accepting spouses who smoke. So the experiments using spousal studies of distinct couples of differences about whether they smoke should hint that those women are likely in an unusual unhealthier community at large.

[@AlainG80]

Finally another great skeptical ted talk!

[@wendysimpson4281]

thank you!

[@irob160614]

Actually there should be three treatments when he was talking about the clinical trials in pharmaceuticals. There should be a group treated with a placebo, one with the best drug out there currently, and one with the product your testing.

[@pepeandchampa1554]

very intersting video and alot of good information

[@SpookyFan]

Well done, Ben.

[@Hythloday71]

Tremendous ! His book is great too !

[@OddFlovver]

I like his energy

[@paniwi11]

@SafeDonations That's wonderful for Mary...any reason you're posting it here?

[@jaffacakesarenice]

To be fair to Ben, it's not his fault if the results were provided as ORs in the original studies he's quoting. As you said, odds ratios (and case-control studies) don't provide the best level of evidence regarding association, but in some situations they're the best we've got. Not sure how far I'd get with what you suggested; I am most definitely *not* a statistician (unfortunately) and often find statistics rather confusing. I am aware, though, that ORs are at best a very crude estimate of RR.

[@ScottishAtheist]

Ben Goldacre can squeeze an hour long talk into 15 mins

[@Head1essC1own]

Goldacre's book should be required reading for everyone in school. Seriously.

[@Master_Therion]

I worked in big pharma for a few months... I saw cases of them with holding data, even when court ordered to make it available. When getting a drug to market means one $Billion profit say goodbye to integrity, honesty and patient safety. Greed is not good.

[@sportyort]

Great video for my TOK class except for the reference to S&M:-(

[@Nualaboala]

Very important video.

[@MayeshaAwal]

This is a great video!

[@AndieRileyJournalist]

His mum was the lead singer in 70's one hit wonder Foxx.

[@thruthewall]

great stuff