If almost half the data on drugs is hidden from our eyes, as mentioned in my  previous post,   why is nobody talking about what’s missing? Isn’t it odd that tons of negative data can disappear so flawlessly with hundreds of eyes peeking over them everyday? Not a researcher that calls for past studies, not a journal that protests lack of publication, not a regulator that nabs the offence?   Unfortunately, not everyone is as clever as Sherlock Holmes to solve mysteries by focusing on what’s missing than what is present. In ‘Silver Blaze,’ the story that revolved around the disappearance of a famous racehorse, Holmes had recognized that none of the people he interviewed had mentioned that the watchdog had barked on the night of the incident. Holmes had concluded that if the dog had not barked, then the dog must have known the perpetrator, and this had led him to track down the guilty party.    But Holmes was an exception. Humans have a natural tendency to focus on ...

Imagine you are suffering from depression. Your psychiatrist puts you on a well-known anti-depressant of which millions of doses are prescribed every year, around the world. But you feel worse than ever before. You even receive a professional setback owing to the drug’s side effects. The psychiatrist is perplexed because she had chosen a drug based on well-designed,  fair trials, with overwhelmingly positive results. What could be wrong?    Interestingly, sometime later, your doctor comes across an uncustomary study conducted by a group of researchers. They have discovered that for all the antidepressants that came to the market in the last fifteen years, only half the clinical trials were published in full – the ones with positive results for the drugs. The ones with negative results were simply lost to history, never appearing anywhere other than in the dusty, disorganized, files of the FDA. A few of the negative trials did appear in academic literature, but were writte...

A key reason why flaws and deceit are rampant in research is that there are no straightforward yes/no answers to all studies. A few decades back, in the early 1990s, there was compelling evidence that beta-carotene protected against cancer. Laboratory studies, animal studies, observational studies – everything was in favour of this antioxidant found in fruits and vegetables. Many scientists themselves took beta-carotene supplements. Then came three large clinical trials that were conducted on heavy smokers and asbestos workers, and the beta-carotene hypothesis crumbled. The trials concluded that not only beta-carotene failed to protect against cancer, but also increased its risk for some patients. Statins have an opposite story. The USFDA warns on statin labels that they may cause memory loss. But a recently-concluded six-year study led by Syndey’s Garvan Institute of Medical Research reveals no link between the two.   Who and what do you believe? And can we...

In these days of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific research has been a source of much hope – the search for a vaccine, trials for preventive medication, surveys suggesting herd immunity in people, and so on. There is also contradictory information to crush our euphoria (no herd immunity, vaccines to take long, promising pills ineffective, et al ). It is difficult to decide which side of the story is true, especially since scientific research is a complex discipline based on several volatile variables. I intend to dwell on some of these variables in my upcoming posts, as they are also an underlying theme in my maiden medical thriller ‘The AquilaTrials.’   I’ll begin by emphasizing that the significance of clinical research as a methodical science to discover new treatments is indisputable. Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard of evidence. Yet, as any other field, pharmaceutical research is fraught with errors, omissions – and frauds – especially as the n...