How to stop the lies infecting medical research | Martin Elliott | TEDxWandsworth
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 8 ธ.ค. 2016
- Martin Elliott is Professor of Paediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery at University College London, Professor of Physic at Gresham College, London. Previously he was Medical Director at The Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust where he has worked as a paediatric cardiothoracic surgeon. Martin will expose the flaws in today’s peer-reviewed medical journals, where the manipulation of research data by a minority of doctors can result in harm to future patients. With Big Data forming a significant portion of the healthcare economy, he explains why patient healthcare and new medical procedures must utilise datasets to bring greater transparency and trust between doctors and their patients.
Martin Elliott is Professor of Paediatric Cardiothoracic Surgery at University College London, Professor of Physic at Gresham College, London, and Co-Medical Director at The Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust (GOS) where he has worked since 1984. He established and leads the National Service for Severe Tracheal Disease in Children at GOS. He developed modified ultrafiltration, helped set up paediatric heart and lung transplantation at GOS, started the European Congenital Heart Defects Database for outcomes analysis and leads the chest wall reconstruction team at GOS. The Tracheal Service at GOS is the largest in World, and the Team has pioneered a number of innovative techniques, including slide tracheoplasty, tracheal homograft patch transplantation, the development of absorbable stents and, most recently, the world’s first stem cell supported tracheal transplantation in a child.
This talk was given at a TEDx event using the TED conference format but independently organized by a local community. Learn more at ted.com/tedx
I like this man's honesty, integrity, and altruism. Plus, he's extremely well spoken but not melodramatic. Kudos.
Truth is the way to go. The liars are eventually are exposed!!!!
Excellent talk! There is far too much dishonesty IN GENERAL in the world! We need much more sunlight!
The mother of the dead child said she had not been counselled properly about the risks and mortality. He was moved upstairs into management. Failure is rewarded with promotion in the NHS.
Well done and critical in these doubtful days.
i am a doctor(maxillo-facial surgeon) by profession . i totally agree with each word dr martin elliot has mentioned . sir i would like to discuss with you more on these issue.
Happy to! Contact me at martin.elliott@gosh.nhs.uk
I believe the surgeon mentioned is Paolo Macchiarini. Fantastic talk thank you.
Thank you, and yes!
What Martin Elliot has brought up is an extremely valuable viewpoint, that if came to fruition, would repair much of the mistrust the public and others have in current medical research. The sciences and especially medical practitioners have an obligation to be truthful to the public if it does not violate non-maleficence, or not inflicting harm by any means. In this case, I would be interested in hearing what negative impacts implementing Martin’s ideas would have on patients and if it would violate any of the ethical principles. As it stands, it is far too common and disheartening to see so many people disregard scientific evidence as a sham, only a tool to push marketing and profits of business, or downright scared of the actual intentions behind the research. The process we use today to share, or more accurately, not share, important data could be a factor in the ongoing anti-vaccination movement and other similar detrimental anti-science movements. The curtailing of information flow just because it looks bad drives people away from believing anything that comes out of official research projects and opens the doorway for many ideas that are not scientifically backed and potentially dangerous practices. Agreeing to follow the ideas proposed by Martin Elliot would be adhering to the ethical concept of beneficence, aiming to improve the welfare of those involved. For beneficial research to truly be effective on all fronts, establishing trust between the public, medical practitioners, and scientists is a must. For the concern of patient consent on giving data, I believe the positive results from sharing this data far outweigh any risk towards the patients it may pose and is as easy as including in the rest of the procedure consent forms. As for the business losses or the necessity of journals, that is a whole different topic.
This is wonderful. Does anyone know of a modern (2022) electronic health research publishing application?
Seems like it would be easy enough for a journal to require raw data and give access to that raw data. If one journal did it, it would become the gold standard and others would quickly follow suit.
As well, anyone submitting an article for publication should be required to submit every detail of methodology that their research could be duplicated exactly, instead of inventing the wheel and then forcing everyone afterwards to reinvent a similar (but not quite the same) version of the wheel.
If it were like Amazon reviews, where each article had reviews of studies and you could see if other researchers failed to duplicate the results, or if there were oversights in methodology that needed to be addressed, or if other findings came to light that changed how the findings should be interpreted, you could see all those. We need something like Amazon of scientific literature. We’ve needed that for a long time.
Am I missing something, though? Why would this be hard to accomplish? Why isn’t it required by journals? What is hard about this? It seems like it shouldn’t be any other way.
Silly child, professors need to publish to eat and pay the rent. There are billions to be made with pharma pump and dump startups without ever actually producing novel valuable medicine. As a chemist who worked on the inside of pharma I'm still astounded as to how naive people are, even doctors.
Self publish for the court of public opinion to decide?
"Truth is a liquid not a solid."
It seems like there is a simple solution to this problem of accountability.... simply don't consider any findings legitimate unless the study is first held in an unalterable state by disinterested 3rd party... this would be a great use for Cardano's ecosystem with smart contracts. It's not perfect, but at least when people don't get the results they want and don't finish there is a record that for some reason all these other cases are left behind. In that ecosystem, one could also have those studies all unalterably linked together.
could you use watson or deep learning for this knowledge?
Possibly, but the quality of data need to be perfect to get the best out of it. here the need for an honest broker and 'public' availability of the data to provide truth check
Very misleading comment at 6:55 - retractions due to misconduct only account for about 50% of retractions. People also retract for honest errors. No surprise that a doctor thinks he is holier than thou
What passes as 'research' these days, is highly likely to have been quite manipulated, from the earliest planning stages, throughout every step to it's completion, to support the agendas of the larger funders of the research.
Two such researches, which took place in about 1987, were for Brachy Therapy implants [radiation beads implanted next to cancer growths], and Nicotine gums and patches, carried out at a Veteran's Administration hospital, in CA.
Especially for the Brachy Therapy implants...pretty epic cheating, lying and twisting of data, throughout the entire endeavor.
The parameters were changed repeatedly, even before it started; prepping the rooms used for test patients was a protracted dog-and-pony show.
Rules kept changing, for instance, test subjects were supposed to be self-care, but from the 1st subject admitted, were full-care, unable to do much of anything for themselves...and it got worse.
Staff were instructed how to use a pen-style dosimeter, wrong. Dosimeter badges got changed in the middle of high-dose patients' stays. The agency doing the readings of badges, was supposed to be a 'disinterested third-party', but it was a local government agency with their own agendas.
Subjects and their families were NOT given anything like proper information to help them make "informed consent". Etc.
Very soon after research was completed, the [manipulated] research helped push Radiation bead implants onto the market promoted as therapeutic or at least palliative treatments. It's still being used today.
While the nicotine patch and gum research was not as clearly or extensively manipulated, what we saw were subjects OD'ing on nicotine, because they still kept smoking, regardless of gum or patch. Perhaps there are some who benefit by using these gums or patches; those I've observed, failed to be able to stop smoking, for numerous reasons...yet they keep trying to use them.
We need new paradigms.
We need better ways to formulate and follow research parameters, to prevent data and procedural manipulations by those desperate to sell products funding or in any way influencing the research.
i wanna be a surgeon so much
Surgeons are that save lives where as physicians over prescribing drugs they no nothing about as why we have so much distrust in the medical community. In the US alone over 128,000 yearly / 365 daily will die because physicians have no idea what they are giving patients that trusted them to actually know what they are doing. They don't.
Surgeons have my utmost respect in modern medicine.
Why don't you all just get honest...end of. Help someone, say how you did it and keep doing better. Get rid of the bs.
It’s “us” not “uz”
Collin furze is a plumber ?