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.
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.
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.
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? 😭
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
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.
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
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.
@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.
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.
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?
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? ._.
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.
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!!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
@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.
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.
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
@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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
@SIC66SIC66 think about it like this. A doctor is expected to hold expert opinion on all drugs. It's a vital part of their job and one of their chief responsibilities. If you the patient only require one drug to treat one specific illness or condition, then it should follow that to self-administer that drug you would only be required to become an 'expert' on one specific substance.
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.
Greece 74 to 84 the people were healthy, in general. after the Greeks went toward western diets rate of heart diseases with many other sicknesses increased dramatically as was shown in figures and observed by leading Greek heart surgeons.. 3 blue areas in Greece have more older people staying healthy far longer than in other regions. Peter l. Dollins.
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.
![F.HERO Ft. JSPKK x ลำไย ไหทองคำ x M-PEE - ไม่สนิทบิดหมด (Thai Riders Anthem) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kPJZ0UihBfk/mqdefault.jpg)
![เปิด อาณาจักร หมื่นล้าน "สาระตั้ม" l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3XE0nPF4YkQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I love that his go to statement is "FIND THE PAPER" and read it for yourself instead of just reading the headline or article.
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.
Julie Blackwelder Link?
How can I link a deleted comment?
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.
Daniil Pintjuk
Yep, you also need to tell whether or not it's a good research article.
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.
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.
@@thehorizontries4759 pre-registration has become a more common thing in the years since i made this comment.
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.
I believe he talks about that in another one of his talks, yes.
I love his criticism of bad reality using scientific mathods. We need more people doing this kind of work.
10 years later this is repeating at a mind-blowing scale.
YOU GOT IT. FAKE, FAKE, FAKE, FAKE RESEARCH.
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.
Everyone should read his book "Bad Science". It was published a while ago so you can pick it up for a couple of quid.
I slowed the video down to 75% and it sounded much better!!
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? 😭
"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."
This is one of the best talks ever given in medicine
keep up the fight. thank you
I love listening to him talk.
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
Uh no it's his book
Oh the irony that I am here ( this evening even ) and the first comment I see is this one … ❤
How could anyone not understand his talk even at his speed, his made alot of sense.
This is basically his book "Bad Science" in a nutshell. Still, go buy it. It's fucking brilliant.
This lecture is awesome at 1.5 x speed
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.
Mix it with phlegm we have to help them aswel 😂
I can do this all day 🖕
This is depressing. Money really is the root of all evil...
I love that there's just random foliage behind
Is there a download I can use to slow him down by 10%? that'd do it
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
just change the playback speed
@nicelittlerunner Just wait five years and you can do it in the youtube player! *sending message into future*
Give this man a medal!
(and somebody to write better conclusions, still feeling bad vibes because it looks like we're screwed)
Yeah use candy crush cover and the cancer sticks to cover covid attempted murder situation
@@Dragon-Slay3r 12 years later and I no longer think this man deserves a medal
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.
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.
@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.
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.
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?
Those where 14 minutes 20 seconds well invested by myself. Glad I watched it.
You are most welcome. I am glad you have a curious open mind.
This should have been the video number 1.000 since it is such a wonderful speech.
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? ._.
+Faiyaz Kashfi Rian the speed on 0.5 is quite entertaining. speaks way too fast on normal speed
+Walle Kiikeri Indeed.
+Walle Kiikeri Indeed.
+Walle Kiikeri Indeed.
+TheKnights Oh dang that's pretty cool you got to see the guy in person. Quite an efficient speaker, I'd say.
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.
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.
Brilliant video. It's like he has compacted all of his excellent book bad science into one 15 minute talk.
Brilliant talk. Lift the veil on the actual evidence!!
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!!
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.
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.
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?
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.
And that of course they’ll withhold the bad data just like before.
Thanks TH-cam for recommending this to me now. Oh, and I wish this guy was my doctor.
Its pleasing to hear someone who speaks as fast as me lol.
Right I had no problems following him
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.
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.
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!
llegue aquí por un enlace compartido de prepa en línea de mi país y me voy con ganas de seguir aprendiendo del tema
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?
@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.
Watching this for HSC1100 at Monash, Caulfield. any one else??
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.
This is the best talk I've watched
@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.
Wait can someone please explain how this passes FDA if their falsifiing results
This is So Important.
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
best TED talk ive seen in awhile
It's been awhile since I've seen a good TED talk.
Freeeeeak man! This guy's enthusiasm is waking me up more than my coffee is!! Got my heart pumping. haha
N.B He makes a very convincing argument too.
One of the better TED videos.
sceptizism combined with humor and good will... how good can one guy get? :-)
Excellent! I wish more people would see this.
@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.
I love the enthusiasm from him!
this has to be, by far, the BEST thing i've watched on TH-cam in months.....*subscribed*
Excellent talk - loved his book, too.
slide of al gore in the Tedx talk opening montage of alumini on bad science. that cracks me up, classic
6:26 Benny picks nose
6:28 Benny puts booger in pocket
I hate that I actually went back to look! LOL
Excellent talk. Thank you.
I like that enthusiasm Benny!
Worth watching.
I know the talk was 2 years ago...but is there any way to obtain sources for some of the information he sites....
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.
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.
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.
Maybe we should medicate people without them knowing: then we could truly study the effect of the drug itself😮
Ben Goldacre is a gem of a scientist-doctor-journalist. Any time I read or hear him, I go away better educated in the ways of rational thought.
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.
Great enlighten for our minds .. already have known this man from his famous book!
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
i like this guy so much his right about everything
great talk, also how to spot missing data, so whats the name of the review group he was talking about?
gah, his words and analogies are so good!
IDK if coffee causes or prevents cancer; but it seems to cause talking very quickly. Well done, sir.
@SIC66SIC66
think about it like this. A doctor is expected to hold expert opinion on all drugs. It's a vital part of their job and one of their chief responsibilities. If you the patient only require one drug to treat one specific illness or condition, then it should follow that to self-administer that drug you would only be required to become an 'expert' on one specific substance.
Goldacre's book should be required reading for everyone in school. Seriously.
Marvelous and absolutely true.
Great video!
I've been waiting for this video for ages! Thanks TED.
wow! ...what an excellent talk
@SafeDonations That's wonderful for Mary...any reason you're posting it here?
So glad this hit 500K views
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.
Greece 74 to 84 the people were healthy, in general. after the Greeks went toward western diets rate of heart diseases with many other sicknesses increased dramatically as was shown in figures and observed by leading Greek heart surgeons.. 3 blue areas in Greece have more older people staying healthy far longer than in other regions. Peter l. Dollins.
Great speech!
Already fav'd before I watched, the love this guy, buy his book
I love TED talks!
I like his energy
@Plecebo1996 While I don't disagree, you realize that TED stands for Technology, Entertainment and Design right?
@Mrmoc7 What about his choice of bottled water, do you agree with him? Do you like his jacket? Do you have anything relevant to say?
Ben Goldacre can squeeze an hour long talk into 15 mins
very intersting video and alot of good information
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.
His mum was the lead singer in 70's one hit wonder Foxx.
Well done, Ben.
thank you!
Oh my wizard god, this man talks SUPER fast.
I think this video should be twice as long if he talked normally
Finally another great skeptical ted talk!
Man he talks quickly... But, i like him he seems brilliant
Excellent!