Tag: John Ioannidis
What the heck happened to John Ioannidis?
John Ioannidis is one of the most published and influential scientists in the world, someone whose skewering of bad medical research we at SBM have frequently lauded over the years. Then the COVID-19 pandemic hit. Since then, Prof. Ioannidis has been publishing dubious studies that minimize the dangers of the coronavirus, shown up in the media to decry "lockdowns," and, most recently,...
Pitfalls in Research: Why Studies Are More Often Wrong than Right
Here is a course guide to episode 9, "Pitfalls of Research", of my YouTube lecture series on science-based medicine.
The Debate Is Over: Antidepressants DO Work Better Than Placebo
The idea that antidepressants are no more effective than placebo has been put to rest. They clearly work when used appropriately, although the effect size is not as large as the published studies have suggested.
Is there a reproducibility “crisis” in biomedical science? No, but there is a reproducibility problem
Reproducibility is the key to scientific advancement. It has been claimed that we suffer from a "reproducibility crisis," but in reality it is a chronic problem in reproducibility. Here we will look at the scope of the problem and strategies to address it.
The hijacking of evidence-based medicine
A hero of the blog, John Ioannidis, worries that evidence-based medicine has been hijacked, and when Ioannidis says something we at SBM listen. But has EBM been "hijacked"?
Everything we eat causes cancer…sort of
Red meat causes cancer. No, processed meat causes cancer. OK, it’s both red meat and processed meat. Wait, genetically modified grain causes cancer (well, not really). No, aspartame causes cancer. No, this food coloring or that one causes cancer. Clearly, everything you eat causes cancer! That means you can avoid cancer by avoiding processed meats, red meat, GMO-associated food (no, probably not),...
The NIH funding process according to John Ioannidis: “Conformity” and “mediocrity”?
John Ioannidis published a paper that concluded that the NIH study section process prioritizes "safe" science and "conformity." Is he correct, or is this an exaggeration that uses a view of science that "brave mavericks" advance science far more rapidly than teams collaborating to make incremental progress?
Lies, damned lies, and…science-based medicine?
I realize that in the question-and-answer session after my talk at the Lorne Trottier Public Science Symposium a week ago I suggested in response to a man named Leon Maliniak, who monopolized the first part of what was already a too-brief Q&A session by expounding on the supposed genius of Royal Rife, that I would be doing a post about the Rife...