He’s back… Watch Dr. Ben Goldacre‘s irreverent and brilliant explanation of why those industry-funded miracle cure headlines can be so appallingly wrong – yes, even when the science is done by those with the letters M.D. after their names.
.
You know, of course, about the placebo effect, in which patients report positive results from taking a mere sugar pill. Turns out there is also something called a nocebo effect, too. This is defined as a negative placebo effect. It happens, for example, when patients take medications and actually experience adverse side effects unrelated to any specific pharmacological action of the drug. The nocebo effect is associated with a person’s prior expectations of adverse effects from the treatment. In other words, if we expect a treatment to hurt us, cause harm, or make us feel sick – it likely will.
The U.K.’s bright and brainy Dr. Ben Goldacre of Bad Science describes this phenomenon in this short but entertaining presentation from last year’s irreverent Nerdstock tour (“Nine Lessons and Carols for Godless People). Continue reading
According to The Guardian, a prominent British plastic surgeon named Dr. Dalia Nield of The London Clinic has been threatened with a libel action by the manufacturer of a cosmetic cream because she publicly questioned whether it worked as the company claimed. Dr. Nield had also told a newspaper reporter: “The manufacturers are not giving us any information on tests they have carried out.” The company, Rodial Limited, claims that its £125 ($192 Cdn) Boob Job cream, if applied regularly, can increase a woman’s breast size by up to 8.4% within 56 days. According to the company’s website, here’s how Boob Job works:
“As your fat cells move around the body after eating, Boob Job ‘blocks’ the fat into the area where the product has been applied, so the bust and décolleté areas. You will see a gradual increase in cup size within 56 days as well as gaining an instant lifting and firming effect.” Continue reading
It may seem to the casual observer that the U.K.’s Great Oxford Debate (held in September at Oxford University and covered last month in the British Medical Journal) resembled a fight between the fox and the farmer over which one of them should be in charge of the henhouse. In one corner, wearing the red silk shorts, you had physician, activist and Bad Science blogger Dr. Ben Goldacre, who argues that the financial interests of a drug company lead to distorted clinical evidence when they run research trials on their own drugs. In this corner, in the shiny blue Spandex, you had consultant Vincent Lawton, a Big Pharma veteran (most notably as a 26-year executive with drug giant Merck Pharmaceuticals), arguing that adequate safeguards already exist to keep a drug company’s research bias nicely in check.
With the British Medical Journal refereeing the rumble, let’s tune in for Round One, led off by Vincent Lawton: Continue reading
The Ethical Nag 