BUT Here's where it gets tricky Numerous systematic reviews have also identified a key problem: industry-funded trials are just as good IF NOT BETTER than non-industry funded trialspic.twitter.com/dAENRM9xek
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
And importantly, THIS DOESN'T JUST APPLY TO DRUGS If you compare industry-funded studies of ketogenic diets vs independent research, you see a similar trend
People who have a stake in the game are just less likely to publish research that might mean they will make less money. They also won't promote it, and may make it more difficult to access for everyone This is, in many ways, much worse than simply doing bad studies
Bad studies are easy to find, easy to discard, easy to ignore. Most studies I've read on acupuncture, for example, are just awful Can't conclude anything from bad research!
But by only publishing positive studies, and only promoting the very best ones, industries can manipulate the narrative by using basic statistical fact: Do enough studies and some of them will be VERY positive
Some of them will be very negative too, but since you can control what gets published, people only see the good and never even hear about the bad
All of this to say: the industry can produce hundreds of amazingly well-done studies and STILL do things in a dodgy way, which is why you should support @senseaboutsci and pre-registration efforts everywhere!
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.