Battling Bad Science TED

Discussion Assignment: "Battling Bad Science" TED TALK
7272 unread replies.7474 replies.
 Terms to review before watching: Epidemiologist, Double-Blind Experiments, Peer-reviewed

science, Control group, Placebo effect.
 You may need to watch the video twice - Dr. Ben Goldacre is talking very fast!!

 Choose a topic from the video to reflect on - was there something that confused you or
challenged your thinking? Or perhaps something shocked you? Etc.
o Write 2 to 4 paragraphs of this reflection/commentary by THURSDAY 01/27/2022.
o Now, take the remaining time to "discuss" with classmates.
o The discussion is open until SUNDAY 01/30/2022
 Refer to the Rubric for Discussion Boards for expectations. It is attached here: Online
Discussion Rubric 0_6-2.docx
Actions
Remember your Netiquette:
 Personalize your message (use the person's name).

 Use humor carefully.
 NO SHOUTING.
 Be precise. Responses do not have to be too long! Perhaps a paragraph or two. A paragraph
will have 3 to 5 (typically) well-written sentences.
 Remember you have a varied audience - respect the diversity!
 Avoid texting language (e.g. "ikr", "LOL", "MDITB"). Some people may not know text
language!
 You can use an acronym after you spell out the whole word when you initially mention it. You
will encounter lots - such as the World Health Organization (WHO) and Non-
Governmental Organizations (NGOs)]
 Be polite! Be respectful!
 Sure you can disagree - a rich variety of opinions is great.
 Be explanatory. Justify your opinion. Provide links to sources!
Google Scholar is a great search engine for reputable sources!
Search entries or author Filter replies by unread Unread Collapse replies Expand replies
Subscribed
Reply Reply to Discussion Assignment: "Battling Bad Science" TED TALK
Collapse SubdiscussionSteven Sheahon

Steven Sheahon
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 7:46am
Manage Discussion Entry
This TedTalk had a lot of information in it, and I can agree that it was very hard to follow along
at points because Mr. Goldacre talked very fast! A couple things stood out to me throughout
the experiment. One was the types of foods that cause/prevent cancer, and the other one was
talking about collecting data with the flip of a coin.
Firstly, according to The Daily Mail Project, they stated that Divorce, Wi-Fi, Toiletries, and
coffee cause cancer, while crusts, red pepper, licorice, and coffee prevent cancer. For one, the
website does not state where they got their information from or where their data was coming
from. This could cause a normal person to stop and ask themselves that something does not
add up. Ben stated a lot of this relates back to political views. Using politics to justify science is
definitely not the smartest way to go about things. Instead, using facts and evidence, instead of
personal opinion to get your point across is much smarter. All in all, most of science is
collected from data and is very factual.
Another thing that caught my eye had to do with reporting data. When Ben talked about the
coin trick, it really stuck out to me. He said if you flipped a coin 100 times, and only reported
half of your findings, he could convince you that you have a 2-headed coin. I think this can be
stated for a lot of information. Under reporting goes against science in many ways, because if
you don't report all of your evidence/findings, the experiment becomes invalid. When
something is invalid, it is hard to find scientific information on it because it is not 100% factual.
Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)
o
Collapse SubdiscussionGrace Leach
Grace Leach
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 1:32pm
Steven,
I also think it is interesting to note that many companies and news articles are biased
towards their products. Therefore, they are pushing information to the public without
truly backing their information up with scientific evidence. It is so hard to weed through
media and news to find truthful articles because in today's society, it is all about quick
fixes. Oftentimes, people who want this quick fixes do not care to make sure the "fix" is
actually going to work. I think this is something that needs to change in society, but I
am not sure how one would even go about this because there is so much being fed
into society and news. This Ted Talk was very eye-opening and shed light into how
much "bad science" is floating in our society today.

Collapse SubdiscussionChana Kalmanson

Chana Kalmanson
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 3:02pm
Hi Grace and Steven,
I enjoyed reading both responses.
Continuing on Grace thought, it is so sickening to hear about different
companies putting peoples health at risk in order to prove that their product is
better and actually works with no side effects. If there are different medical
trials going on, a person will of course want the best one out there. Companies
will make sure their product is presented in a way that people will choose their
trial. Many people don't do their own research on the trails and understand the
backings of what the scientists are claiming their finding are. Non-scientists,
maybe won't understand the scientific language that is being displayed at
them making them just agree with the findings the scientist say without any
proofs.
Yes, it might be difficult to differentiate which is the "bad science", but an
advice I can just give is doing our own personal research.
Reply Reply to Comment

Collapse SubdiscussionMelissa Christopherson

Melissa Christopherson
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 7:37pm
Hi Grace!
I agree. With the easy access of Google and for some, social media, there is
a lot of misinformation being thrown at us daily. It feels as if we are fed what
we want to believe and see versus actual and truthful data. I have become
much more selective in the materials I read and websites I use when looking
at data.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionStephan Faller

Stephan Faller
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 3:14pm
Hi Steven,
Agreed. It is easy to make a product look good if you can withhold 50% of the data. If
my car only started half the time, but the automotive company could market it as 100%
reliable I don't think they would be in business very long.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionTrayvon Stutson

Trayvon Stutson
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 6:47pm
Steven,
I couldn't agree more with it being a bit hard to follow at times because he's definitely
someone that can talk about multiple things in the span of 5 minutes. But I feel like we
grasped onto things that jumped out to us such as the issues with the placebo effect,
the issues with authority, and the issues of false misrepresentation about certain
products. At least I know with me I was watching and noticing all the red flags. Not only
with the information but with the sources he tried to back things up with.

Collapse SubdiscussionBrittany Hayes

Brittany Hayes
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 10:30am
There is certainly quite a bit of information delivered in a short time! Having previously taken a
research course, much of the information regarding studies and the ways in which they're
biased or "rigged" wasn't surprising. However, Dr. Goldacre did point something out that I
wasn't really aware of, which is that many drug trials are still testing against placebos even
though there are good existing treatments available. Like much of what he says during the talk,
this particular notion—testing a new drug against a similar existing treatment—seems so
obvious that it's frustrating that it isn't happening.
It's wildly inappropriate and potentially damaging that companies and certain lobbies are able
to fund their own studies and subsequently distort the data or rig those studies in their own
favor. This is one of the reasons why it's so important that research methods are replicable and
that studies are repeated.
Reply Reply to Comment (2 likes)
o

Grace Leach
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 1:27pm
Brittany,
I agree with you that it was surprising to learn that many drug companies have
released drugs even though they do not have the data to back it up, such as Tamiflu. I
have also taken a research methods course before, and was not surprised that studies
are oftentimes biased or false information. I am surprised that even though I know this
information, sometimes media makes something so appealing that you want to believe
it, even if there is no evidence to back it up. Society has a way of promoting products
for quick fixes that have no scientific evidence that they work, and this is a problem.
o

Stephan Faller
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 3:10pm
Hi Brittany,
That was my main takeaway as well! I always figured that there was manipulation after
a drug went to market. Heavily marketing a drug, using reps to push a certain
treatment, etc. However I thought that the level of ethics was higher during the clinical
trial period. That isn't right in my eyes and should be changed.
o

Steven Sheahon
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 7:41pm
Hi, Brittany! I can agree that the information presented wasn't very surprising. That is a
good point you make about drug companies still testing placebos even when
treatments have already come out. I never thought of that before. I see how it is
frustrating as well, like if we know one drug is super close to curing a disease, why
don't we just test a lot of similar materials to see if we are getting closer.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionSaif Alrashdi

Saif Alrashdi
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 12:14pm
Brittany, indeed. It appears to me how science is used to influence but we know it is
bad because the data are incorrect. This goes to the dilemma whether what matters
most when it comes to investigation, because after all if we are not cautious, we could
easily fall prey to these tricks huge corporations do to sell products.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionJacob Hemenway

Jacob Hemenway
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 1:21pm
Hi Brittany,
I agree that its is surprising and confusing why companies test against placebos.
When they find a treatment that works and has little to no side effects you would think
that they would either work on recreating it as much as possible or improving it.
Instead they just try to make multiple knock offs that aren't nearly as effect. You would
think that especially in todays day in age with covid things likes this would be taken a
little bit more seriously.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionJarvis Omersa

Jarvis Omersa
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 2:44pm
Brittany,
I wasn't aware about the testing on placebos vs. the good treatments that currently
exist until Dr. Goldacre discussed it as well. It opens your eyes to the exact intentions
these companies really have. Rigging data is never acceptable (in my eyes) but
obviously goes on more than we will ever know. I agree with you about studies
needing to be repeated because at this point its the only way to ensure the
authenticity.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionDelany Trujillo

Delany Trujillo
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 10:32pm
Hi Brittany!
I also wasn't very surprised about hearing that studies are biased or "rigged" as you
said. I find it almost disturbing because most of these studies are supposed to be
helping others, especially with the prescription drugs that Dr. Goldacre mentioned
since the studies withheld over 70% of the research trials. I agree with you that it is so
important that research methods are replicable and that studies are repeated.

Collapse SubdiscussionCamille Carrier

Camille Carrier
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 11:46am
There is always an emphasis about not believing what you read on the internet and this
TED talk supports that. The thing is it is not always known just how often people lie on the
internet. Watching this talk is helps put into perspective how often this occurs. It is very easy to
believe what is said on the internet. As Dr. Ben Goldacre presented more examples of false
science information it became clear that it is often. I think that this knowledge should be more
widely known so that everyday people can be aware of the false things they may be reading. I
believe that it is concerning how much misinformation is spread about science.
I am most intrigued when Dr. Goldacre began speaking on pharmaceutical companies
twisting information for their own gain. In the instance of the pharmaceutical companies
twisting what they say it is clear that it is "bad science". I think that it is important for this to be
more known and emphasized. Science is very important in our world if people begin to twist
what they are reporting on it can effects things to a large scale. It raises the question, should
there be more regulations? Of course, after this video it is evident that there should be more
regulations on how much information is being withheld from the general population. It is
shocking to know that these companies can withhold bad information for their own gain. It does
make sense that they do, but it should not be a problem the way that it is.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionMadison Habiger

Madison Habiger
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 2:31pm
Camile,
I agree that there may need to be more regulations. With the false advertisement of
pharmaceutical companies, people's lives may be in danger. I agree that it makes
sense on the companies end to withhold bad information. I mean, when your trying to
sell a product, why would you want the flaws out on the internet? I am not agreeing
with the idea of hiding information, but it is sensible in the marketing business.
However, there should be regulations on the information that should be released on
the internet. Companies should at least be required to release full information on their
product on a label, in a informative instructional paper inside the packaging, or even
on a company website. Any combination of these ideas would increase the credibility
of the companies and the information they release.

Collapse SubdiscussionAnnemarie Duncan

Annemarie Duncan
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 10:21am
Madison,
Yes - hiding information from marketing sells more product ...and actually kills
more people. The cigarette companies knew early on that their product is
literally cancer causing and addictive ... less people start smoking because
this information FINALLY became public and their advertising was limited to
venues that younger people wouldn't see as much. And - now we have an
opioid crisis because of marketing to make a buck. So many people (esp
unfairly POC) are in jail for selling simple weed while the medical industry or
alcohol/cigarette companies push addictive drugs all the time.
Great work!
o

Steven Sheahon
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 7:43pm
Camille,
great reflection! Definitely don't ever believe what you read on the internet unless you
can confirm it from a reliable site! I think a lot of new reports that come out are very iffy
whether they are true or not, and we have started to make it normal to believe lies
more than the truth. Good point on the pharmaceutical companies! I feel their main
goal should be to help their customers and not be selfish in trying to make a profit for
themselves.
o

Saif Alrashdi
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 12:16pm
Camile, now we could see how bad science is a faulty form of sound science that has
room for development. It respects the scientific method, although there are certain
flaws and prejudices. It's frequently created with the right intentions, by academics
answering to a distorted incentive scheme.


Grace Leach
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 1:24pm
The Ted Talk titled “Battling Bad Science” was very interesting. I had never truly understood
epidemiology and was curious from the beginning of the video. I was intrigued by how Dr.
Goldacre explained that we often do not know if something is good for us or bad for us through
the media. Media oftentimes releases information that may not necessarily be true or good for
our health. This Ted Talk really challenged my thinking about science and the media. I was
challenged to think about information in our media that I may have believed or “fell for” just
because it was popular.
When Dr. Goldacre started talking about how those who eat more vegetables, fruits, and olive
oil have fewer wrinkles, I was challenged about my way of thinking about aging. Society tells
us that there are certain ways to achieve successful aging and there are ways you don’t.
These strategies do not always work for all kinds of people, yet society keeps on placing these
pressures because they have found “evidence” for the results. I thought it was very interesting
when Dr. Goldacre mentioned that those who had fewer wrinkles may have had different
lifestyles and livelihoods to those who had more wrinkles. Therefore, we cannot place all the
credit on the consuming of vegetables, fruit, and olive oil to have fewer wrinkles.
Overall, this video really challenged me to think about society’s role in bad science.
Oftentimes, placebos and “fast solutions” are promoted to the public to trick people into
thinking something will benefit their health and lives. This video challenged me to evaluate
future news and media diligently in order to discover if it is true or false.
o

Madison Habiger
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 1:37pm
I agree with your point about "falling for" the misleading information throughout media.
Personally, I find myself falling for this information all the time. Whether it be on social
media platforms or being spread on T.V. advertisements, the information is often
misleading. One problem with our generation is we tend to follow the trends and
believe information that is false because the idea is "popular." Society is constantly
trying to spread false information on aging. For example, the skincare adds you may
see on T.V. are often false. Our celebrities often spread false information about their
aging process, which often leads to people believing them and "following" in their
footsteps. Again, I think your point is very intriguing.


Chana Kalmanson
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 2:35pm
Hi Madison!
I enjoyed reading your response,
Just continuing on what you were saying, I could not wrap my head around the
fact there are so many false information out there in the word. I know for
myself I could fall under the influence of what the magazines tell me to do if I
want to have perfect skin or improve my life better. In own lives we might say
"lets leave all the scientific findings to the scientist", however, a lot of these
findings may be false. Thankfully, we are all human beings that can put in the
effort to try to distinguish which information is false and which information is
actually true.
o

Jarvis Omersa
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 3:16pm
Hi Grace,
This is a well written summary of the Ted Talk with Dr. Goldacre. When listening to him
discuss the ways you can get fewer wrinkles, I was impressed and thought to myself,
"Wow, I, myself, actually believe this" or would if I read it somewhere. It's believable
enough to personally research it. There are many different things we can take into
consideration regarding wrinkles. Where they come from and how to prevent them.
o

Delany Trujillo
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 10:44pm
Hi Grace!
I also didn't really know what epidemiology was and was surprised to hear that most
people don't because now I think it is such an important study to understand. Falling
for or believing the media probably is something that happens to everyone since it is
such a powerful tool in our society today. Hopefully, we both can relay this new
information we gained to others so that they can be informed!


Madison Habiger
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 1:33pm
In the TED video, Ben Goldacre talks about "Bad Science." He explains this as unreliable
sciences that we may encounter daily. Goldacre continues by giving examples of magazines
and newspapers that share different things that may prevent cancer. One example included
the drinking of red wine daily can improve your chances of not getting cancer. This example is
bogus, because Goldacre explains that every sip of alcohol you consume actually increases
your chances of getting cancer.
Another example he uses is an insert from the Daily Mirror. It spread the false information
that eating fruits and olive oil can reduce your chance of getting wrinkles. Goldacre then
explained that it is not the food that is being consumes, but it is the lifestyle that the subject
tested are living. Those who eat healthier tend to live more of an upper-class lifestyle, while
those visiting McDonalds daily tend to live a lower-class lifestyle.
In my opinion, I agree with Goldacre. Sometimes it is hard to identify the differences
between "good science" and "bad science." However, we need to pay attention so that we do
not spread false information. We need to watch credibility, authority, ad many other things to
ensure that we are receiving correct and important information. False information is spread
daily through advertisements, magazines, and even celebrity influences. Thus, we need to
learn the ways to identify the false sciences, so we can learn the correct science.
o

Camille Carrier
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 3:19pm
I agree with you that we need to pay attention so we don’t spread false information.
I think that it is important to note that while there is a lot of false information spread
everyday isn’t it important to help spread that there is a lot of false information? I know
that personally I fact check the information I’m researching not to spread more. I think
that you have some good points!

Collapse SubdiscussionMadigan Snodgrass

Madigan Snodgrass
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 4:36pm
In the “Battling Bad Science” Ted Talk there were a few topics that really challenged my
thinking. I have always noticed the news articles that say that if you drink a cup of coffee or a
glass of wine a day can prevent cancer. I always felt like these articles were not true but never
looked into how evidence can be distorted.
From this Ted Talk, I learned that it is very important to look into different factors in studies. He
gives the example of people who eat vegetables and olive oil having fewer skin wrinkles than
people who do not. But we have to look at the why. Why would these people have fewer skin
wrinkles? Because they are more likely to be wealthier people. Another point he talked about
is how important a control group is in a study. He talked about how the placebo effect works
and how taking sugar pills or saltwater injections can help with pain because our beliefs and
expectations can be manipulated. I found this idea to be fascinating. This is why we do trials to
control against a placebo.
I also found it quite interesting how you can rig your data. You can compare a new drug with
placebo or even something that is already known as being bad. You can give the competing
drug in too high or a dose or too low of a dose that causes side effects. This was used in a
schizophrenic medicine study. It's fascinating that cheating the system is allowed in scientific
studies.


Collapse SubdiscussionAustin Hobbs

Austin Hobbs
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 8:01pm
Good-Evening Everyone,
The subject that stood out to me more than any was the Placebo Effect. According to the
World Health Organization (WHO), "It was concluded that the use of placebos may sometimes
be justified even if a vaccine of proven efficacy exists and the risks of using the placebo and
withholding or delaying administration of the existing vaccine are greater than minimal." What I
take from that means as long as there is a back-up plan, they can do whatever they want
including withhold information. My wife and I have experienced one of these placebos before
and had a very negative result from it. In my opinion it should be unethical and illegal to place
a drug on the market without all of the proper information. At this point they are playing with
peoples' lives when there is already a better option. I look forward to hearing everyone else's
point of view on the subject.
o

Camille Carrier
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 9:07am
Austin,
I see what you're saying about the placebo effect and it does seem alarming. I think it
comes into play that there should be regulations on how much information can be
withheld from the public. There is another way to look at it as well. For the FDA to
approve a new drug it can take, on average, 6 years (FDA). If the FDA is going
through such extensive trials to approve a medication and make sure it is safe,
wouldn't you think it's okay to withhold some information? Just a thought to add to the
conversation.

Collapse SubdiscussionAnnemarie Duncan

Annemarie Duncan
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 10:05am
Camille,
My sister works for Abbott Laboratory here in Chicago. She worked for 9 years
straight on an at-home AIDS test kit ... she had to keep it secret - I literally had
to wait 9 years to know what she was working on!! You're so right - it takes a
long time and lost of money.
No - I do not think it's right to withhold results from trials ...human trials that is!
if it gets to that stage then it really should be considered very safe - they
(almost always) get tested on animals before that. All human trials with the
formulation that will be going to go out to the public should be public
information.
Great work!
o
Collapse SubdiscussionMubarak Alahbabi

Mubarak Alahbabi
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 12:53pm
Austin,
Placebos are a crucial aspect of clinical trials because they give a reference point for
new medications, allowing researchers to verify that they are both safe and effective.
They can give them with the evidence they need to submit a new drug application to
regulatory agencies.


Chana Kalmanson
Jan 26, 2022Jan 26 at 8:04pm
Hello Everyone,
After listening to Dr. Ben Goldacre, I am shocked. In life we are all exposed to lots of
information a day. From listening to the news, reading the newspaper, reading
advertisements, the radio, we can hear lots of discoveries throughout our day. There are so
many times that we find different findings in science that are very interesting that in our own
lives we start doing because it might help prevent something or improve our life. Most people
would do anything to help improve their lives. However, I know for myself I don’t do any
research. An example in my life that I started to do because I heard great things was that
drinking water with lemon will help clear up my skin. I started to do this without actually finding
a basis to this fact.
There can be science languages that most people won't understand and won't second guess
the scientific findings of what they are currently doing to improve their life. These people
creating this product hope that we misunderstand the science so their product can go viral.
Maybe now I should really go do some research to see how true this statement is. We all buy
into myths in science. From now on, I have to stop and not just accept these facts without
questioning them.
Listening to Dr. Ben, he really opened my eyes how science can be manipulated and the
different health preventatives that I have done, could be false. Pharmaceutical companies can
abuse their evidence and distort their evidence for selfish reasonings.
I got caught off guard when It was discussed about how so many pharmaceutical companies
might give an extra dose to the patient or give them a little less in a trial. Giving an extra dose
can make them have side effects so that they can prove that their competing drug is
dangerous and ineffective. The ethics of treating the health of a person is something these
companies are dealing with. They are putting a persons health at risk and that Is something I
could not believe.
In conclusion, we all come across so many different types of information. Yes, we could listen
to what the daily magazine when saying on "how to live longer", but the best outcome is doing
your own research, looking at peer reviewed articles, and finding a basis to the questions we
might have.
Thank you all for listening,
-Chana kalmanson

o
Collapse SubdiscussionKossivi Abalo

Kossivi Abalo
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 7:46pm
Hello Chana!
It is true how an eye opening Dr. Ben talk was when it comes to how pharmaceutical
companies can manipulate data of research to their advantage. For these companies,
it is more about the profit they could make than how fast or better they could heal a
disease. That is why I think the government should be more involve in these
researches.
o

Mubarak Alahbabi
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 12:55pm
Chana,
You are on point. In science, we're so focused with making sure that our individual
tests are meticulously controlled, that we eliminate any bias, and that we rule out any
other explanations for whatever occurrences we discover. Individual experiments are
handled with extreme caution. But then, at the key second phase — the portion of the
process when you pull all of the information together to create a summary that's useful
in the real world - we abruptly abandoned all of these ideas.

Stephan Faller
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 3:04pm
I was quite surprised at the degree of data manipulation and withholding of findings
pharmaceutical companies are allowed during clinical trials. I understand that drug companies
are in business to make money, but manipulation of findings can be potentially dangerous to
patients, as well as a waste of resources. I know if I had a mental illness I would not want to
be in the group of patients who were receiving 20 mg of the "old" anti psychotic drug, all to
prove it had less side effects than the "new" drug in a more sensible dosage!
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant.". Dr. Goldacre's quote at the end of his presentation is the
key takeaway I got from his presentation. Imposing more transparency upon pharmaceutical
companies' findings strikes me as a logical step to improve both overall public health and help
quell the current anti/pseudo science narrative currently happening in our country.

o

Trayvon Stutson
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 6:43pm
Hey Stephen,
I was quite shocked myself with the data manipulation and withholding of findings
pharmaceutical companies considering its such a huge industry with millions of lives in
their hands they would want to produce true and full findings with their medications to
the population of individuals that are consumers regularly. Definitely couldn't agree
more with a "waste of resources" it kind of reminds me of the Army. The Army pays so
much money for certain programs just for them to not be used to their full potential or
just covered up because someone finds it useless a bit. Different industries but same
concept of willing to sweeping anything under the rug to continue the revenue of
money flowing through


Stephan Faller
Jan 28, 2022Jan 28 at 1:29pm
Haha agreed! My old reserve unit used to have to maintain Vietnam era
generators for any potential deployment. When I asked if we would actually
deploy with this ancient generators, they said no. They were just keeping it in
the inventory because they were allowed more funds to maintain it

o

Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 7:51pm
Hi Stephan!
The amount of data manipulation blows my mind. When Dr. Goldacre was talking
about the clinical trials for the drugs, I couldn't help but think of the patients who signed
up. Do they vet them to ensure they are not causing too much damage to the
individual? Seems like a dangerous game to play to push a drug.


Stephan Faller
Jan 28, 2022Jan 28 at 1:30pm
Hi Melissa! I would doubt it. I know it's a trial I wouldn't sign up for

Collapse SubdiscussionKeana Hernandez

Keana Hernandez
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 3:07pm
Hey Stephan:
To piggy back off your discussion, the thought of signing up for a trial
like that does scare me as well! Furthermore, after Dr. Goldacre's talk,
now I wonder if there is a way to even stop industries from keeping
information from consumers, or if this will be an ongoing strategy
forever. It would be interesting to see if their are any solutions to
prevent the unethical problems these trials have-- I sure hope there
is.


Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 5:01pm
This Ted Talk with Dr. Ben Goldacre hit on a topic I had discovered in a previous course I
took. I learned about the ethical issues with medications and payoffs happening between
doctors and pharmaceutical companies. Dr. Goldacre's talk on negative information going
missing in industry and independent studies to make their drug more successful touches on
some of the dishonesty in the industry.
I read an article from 2017 about pharmaceutical fraud by Cindy Greenman and Zac
Greenman on Google Scholar. It notes that according to the DOJ website, over $19 billion has
been collected from pharmaceutical companies for various violations of the Federal False
Claims Act to include billing, marketing, and pricing schemes. Some of those companies
included Pfizer Corp and Johnson & Johnson Corp.
Great Ted Talk! Overall, it solidifies what most of us probably know to be true about
pharmaceuticals yet still shocking those ethical violations exist within pharmaceuticals.
Edited by Melissa Christopherson on Jan 27 at 7:42pm

o

Madigan Snodgrass
Jan 28, 2022Jan 28 at 9:49am
Hey Melissa,
I think it is crazy that $19 billion has been collected for violations of the Federal False
Claims Act. I'm surprised that so many drug companies have rigged their data. I have
always thought drug companies should not be able to market and advertise their drugs
to the public. I think that testing a new drug testing should be regulated so we know if
the drug works or not. I don't like the idea of drug compares rigging their data.
o

Delany Trujillo
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 10:58pm
Hi Melissa!
I wasn't too shocked to hear that there was bias and withholding happening within
these studies, although I found it quite frustrating to hear how Dr. Goldacre mentioned
it. It sure does show the dishonesty that has been created and the message they are
relaying back to the public, but that is why it is so important to have people like Dr.
Goldacre to show us. I'm sure the article you read would be very intriguing to hear
about those companies that we "trust" to be a part of all of this.


Trayvon Stutson
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 6:37pm
I do agree when Dr. Ben stated the list of things that cause cancer and the listed the things that
prevents and some of those same-things are on the prevents list. It reminds me of California
considering I'm from there literally theres a yellow sticker on everything that "Might cause
cancer....". This day of age I feel like everything causes cancer at this point theres really not a
way to avoid exposing yourself. I feel like everyone is so worried about dodging cancer that
most people will do anything to runaway from anything or run to something that might help
"avoid it". Like the olive oil point that Dr. Ben brought up there's no actual study supporting
that. There's some article in some beauty magazine coming up with fake percentages and
numbers to control people's mind to thinking that hypothesis is in fact fact.
I'm a bit shocked with the placebo effect considering I would have never thought that medicine
would be anywhere near that concept considering in my opinion it deals with trying to convince
individuals that "alternate medications" when it comes to medicine is the same as having the
actual thing. Removing data from certain studies do not surprise considering the medicine
industry wouldn't be a thing considering the real results could scare people away and make
people perform self medication.
Edited by Trayvon Stutson on Jan 27 at 6:38pm


Collapse SubdiscussionSamantha Ugarcina
Samantha Ugarcina
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 6:50pm
Good evening, all! After watching this video, I found the one thing that stood out to me the
most (and the most fascinating thing) is the placebo effect. He talked about the "two sugar pills
a day are better than one a day for gastric ulcers" and how the saltwater injection as opposed
to the sugar pill are "more effective" because it feels like a more effective treatment.
I believe the placebo effect is not only a scientific experiment for studies, but it is also a
fascinating psychological aspect, as well. Placebo effects are great in determining effects on
an actual product (i.e. medication, treatments, etc.) But in some cases, a placebo effect might
suggests that the human brain and the way we think can cause us to believe the placebo
worked. For example, did anyone here have their parents spray "monster spray" under their
bed or in their closet when they were little? Or better yet, does anyone here do that for their
own kids? We obviously know that said "monster spray" is typically water in a labeled bottle,
but to children, it's a magical spray that made the monsters disappear.
As I stated above, the placebo effect is extremely interesting to me - not only from the scientific
perspective, but also from the psychological aspect, as well.
o

Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 7:42pm
Hi Samantha!
I wished I had monster spray for the people living under my stairs. We kept a freezer
in the basement and I had to go down many times in the dark to grab some food
because, of course, the light was at the bottom of the steps. I swear they tried to get
me every time I ran up and down the stairs. :) Great example of a placebo.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionAustin Hobbs

Austin Hobbs
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 8:56pm
Good-evening Samantha,
I also touched on the Placebo Effect from a different point of view. I see what you
mean about it being effective from a psychological aspect, however I feel for the
physical aspect it should be legitimate pharmaceuticals that have been tested, and all
information has been presented to the doctors prescribing the medication. I
understand there are people that will abuse this, and Placebo's are a way of avoiding
that. But at the same time, what if someone comes in and has a legitimate pain or
symptom and they give them a Placebo and their condition worsens? That person is
having issues because the doctor prescribed them a "dummy" drug instead of what
may actually benefit them.


Samantha Ugarcina
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 11:28am
Good morning Austin!
I 100% agree with your idea that placebos could potentially worsen a patient's
symptoms if prescribed the wrong/dummy medication. However, I believe that
the primary use of Placebos are mainly found in trials of medications. In an
article called "Placebos in Cancer Clinical Trials" found on Cancer.net, Dr.
Richard L. Schlisky discussed why the use of Placebos are clinically
necessary in pharmaceutical trials. You can't perform studies without subjects
(in the case the patients) and provide consent to participate before they begin
the trial study. They are also informed that they will receive the Placebo
treatment, and whether or not they will receive the active medication at some
point during the trial, if not immediately after receiving the Placebo. My
understanding of Placebos in this case is that Placebos are necessary for
studies so that the medical providers' only choice is to give the correct
medication, rather than prescribing a "dummy" pill.

Collapse SubdiscussionKossivi Abalo

Kossivi Abalo
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 7:23pm
After watching the video, I would like to share a little bit about the placebo effect.
The term placebo is a regular term in the pharmaceutical industry, especially in research
pharmacy. In 1811, a medical dictionary defined placebo as “an epithet given to any medicine
adapted more to please than benefit the patient.” (Moerman,2002). It is a technique used to
determine whether a drug is effective to treat a specific disease. It consists of giving certain
participant in a drug trial a “gummy/sugar pill” while the remaining participant receive the actual
drug that is the subject of the rial.
The placebo effect “is the change produced by the placebo.” Let’s say two individuals (A, B)
are diagnosed with the same medical condition. Individual A receive a test drug and B a
lookalike pill of the test drug. Both believe they have the same treatment. After a certain period,
the medical examination shows that they are both healed. The healing of individual B is the
placebo effect. It is a psychological healing, not a therapeutic healing due to an active
ingredient in a drug. B is healed only because he/she believed she was having the drug.
While writing this, one question was on my mind: what is the difference between a control
group and a placebo? As I read further into the literature, I understood that a control group
could be a placebo in a trial. This was the case in 1990 during the test of Lansoprazole, a
generic of Prevacid, a proton pump inhibitor, to treat gastroesophageal reflux acid disease
(GERD). For the trial, ranitidine, a generic of Zantac, was used as a control. Neither the
patients nor the researchers knew who has lansoprazole or who has the ranitidine. This is a
double-blind technic which provide a highly objective and valuable information on the drugs.
Because ranitidine was already known to be effective against GERD, it is considered the
control drug.
Work cited:
o Moerman, Daniel (2002). Meaning, Medicine, and the “Placebo Effect.” Cambridge
university press. https://www.myptsd.com/gallery/-pdf/1-43.pdf (Links to an
external site.).
Edited by Kossivi Abalo on Jan 27 at 7:28pm
o

Keana Hernandez
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 2:57pm
Hey Kossivi!
Before watching this video, I assumed a trial with a placebo resulted in solid and
reliable results. Naturally, you would think if it helps, then you should take it. However,
now I see how unimportant that is for a doctor like Dr. Goldacre. As he stated, they
want to know if something is better than the competing product on the market, not "if
it's better than nothing at all".
Edited by Keana Hernandez on Jan 29 at 2:58pm

Jarvis Omersa
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 10:28pm
I must say this Ted Talk was very compelling but also very hard to understand. I had to watch it
twice and the second time around it made more sense, thankfully I was able to process it
better. I have never really looked into or studied much about epidemiology, so watching this
raised my eyebrows. I've always thought that journalists and the news can be misleading,
listening to him discuss how medicine lacks credible information just confirms my thoughts.
Evidence can be easy manipulated and you have to figure out the good and the bad.
One of the topics he discussed that interested me is the fish oil trial. The points he discussed
are very valid because the older the children got the "smarter" they became, or did they? The
pills might have played a role but what else did? The fact that mentally, the kids probably
thought that they were doing better work, getting better test scores because of the pills, is
something one must take into consideration. What basis is there for evidence prior to this
specific trial? Not much, if any.
o

Samantha Ugarcina
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 11:34am
Hi Jarvis!
Your insight on the fish oil pills is pretty much exactly what my interpretations were on
the subject - what other contributing factors played a roll in the outcomes of the study?
Much like the topic of the consumption of olive oil prevents wrinkles and "anti-aging",
we would need to monitor the subjects for YEARS and figure out what kind of lifestyle
each one lives. The same study would apply to the fish oil subjects. We would have to
monitor each of the children's habits and lifestyles. Do they all have a pretentious daily
schedule? Are they eating three meals a day with all of the basic food groups being
met? There is also a psychological side to this as well just like you said - because they
are taking these "magical" fish oil pills, do they believe the pill is making them smarter?
There are many different aspects we need to look at for both of these studies.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionKamiel Harris

Kamiel Harris
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 4:49pm
Hi Jarvis,
I too had difficulty with keeping up with the video. The speaker provided some great
information however, he spoke so fast that it almost gave me anxiety. Luckily, I was
able to find a way to slow the video speed down to be able to take it all in.
I too was interested in the fish oil study. I too think that there are too many factors to
accurately determine if it was the fish oil that aided them or not.


Kamiel Harris
Jan 27, 2022Jan 27 at 11:34pm
Dr. Glenacre discussed how badly science can be manipulated by biased circumstances. Dr.
Glenacre describes the weakest form of science being authority. I understand this to mean that
generally we may take scientific explanations from doctors or those who are commonly thought
to just know the answer. Good science is something that can be factually proven or tested.
Generally speaking, we have found it easy to read headlines or watch television shows, even
the news, and will accredit the things we hear or read, rather than relying on solid evidence
that has been tested accurately using scientific methods. Although these results are commonly
perceived by the general public to be true, without accurate testing, it is merely just
pseudoscience.
Placebo was one term that stuck out while watching this video. It was interesting to learn that
clinical trials often use this technique and carry out a double-blind experiment, where no one
knows which group receives actual treatment, and which one receives the placebo treatment.
This is done so that the chances of the data being distorted are lessened, and true science can
be tested without manipulation. In all, I agree with Dr. Glenacre's description of "bad science"
and his reasoning around ensuring that results are reported ethically.
o

Madigan Snodgrass
Jan 28, 2022Jan 28 at 10:02am
Hello Kamiel,
I found Dr. Glenacre's Ted talk to be fascinating. I always knew that science could be
manipulated but I did not know that It happened so often. I think setting up
experiments correctly is so important. In the video, he gives the example that people
who eat vegetables and olive oil have fewer skin wrinkles than people who do not. But
there was no control in the study so the data was not accurate. Before watching this
video I already knew what a placebo effect was and how it can manipulate our beliefs.
I found it interesting that many new drug tests used rigged data to bet their drugs to
market.

Collapse SubdiscussionTaylor Bistodeau

Taylor Bistodeau
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 11:18am
During this video he talked about a lot but the thing that stood out to me is when he started
talking about funded trails tend to all ways have a flattering result combated to independent
trails. There's a huge but the methods used with the funded trails are better than the
independent funded trails. How does this work they ask well the negative missing goes
missing? Which this shocked me because how would information goes missing in a trail.
Because they want the drug to work for everyone so once they drug doesn't work, they don't let
that information go out to the public.
He uses the drug Tamiflu for an example. The government has funded thousands of dollars on
this drug to reduce the complications of the flu. The complications aren't to cure it in a day they
are, so you have a less risk of pneumonia and death. The infectious disease cochranee group
has been trying to get full and usable data out of the drug company so they can make their full
decision, but they haven't been able to get the information from the company. This happened
all over the world with different drugs. This is shocking because wouldn't company's want to
continue finding the best drug possible.
o

Keana Hernandez
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 2:54pm
Hi Taylor!
This also took me by storm. I feel like my persona is programed to see the good in
everything, so I pretty much choose not to think that the government is trying to
manipulate us (although this is sometimes hard, haha). After hearing that there is
absent information-- on purpose-- it is pretty clear that this can result in the outcome
they already wanted to have. This makes me think how corrupt the industry really is!


Taylor Bistodeau
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 10:03pm
Hi Keana
I also tend to see the good in everything and everyone!
o
Collapse SubdiscussionDonte Lilly

Donte Lilly
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 10:46pm
Taylor,
I have always wondered the same thing. These companies are out here putting out
drugs to the people knowing that sometimes it is not safe to use or that it will be
effective at all. At the end of the day I think that those type of people do not actually
care what will happen. It all is just for profit anyway. I wish that they had something to
protect the people from these type of things because the average person is not going
to be thinking about this when prescribed these medicines or picking them up from the
store.


Keana Hernandez
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 2:46pm
This video has made me question my existence... no, really. I never would have taken into
consideration most of the variables Dr. Goldacre discusses in this topic. Personally, when i'm
presented with information supporting a a positive specific result, whether I read upon results
of a specific medication, vaccine, or a specific food consumption, as long as I "see" that their
was a positive correlation that lead to the outcome, it's enough for me to be convinced, and
therefore absorb the information and apply it to my life (example: Buy a medication that
prevents something, eat a specific food that's said to be healthy for you, or get a specific
vaccine.
At the end of this video, I somewhat feel deceived by what I have accepted to be true in the
past! My entire life, I have been doing what the media, articles, and other trusted sources,
convince me what works or best for the human body. In fact, when I am convinced, I am a
complete advocate for whatever information I have chose to believe, especially when it is
health related. I never took into account that there perhaps could have been design flaws,
which you would think to be obvious, as a consumer, would be unethical to present
manipulated results. Moving forward, I will definitely do more research in the future before
doing what the media tells me or make decisions based off (what could be) unethical results.
Edited by Keana Hernandez on Jan 29 at 3:08pm


Collapse SubdiscussionDonte Lilly

Donte Lilly
Jan 29, 2022Jan 29 at 10:29pm
Dr. Glenacre was saying how people can be easily tricked. We take advice from the television
and doctors when it comes to explanations such as how to prevent and what causes cancer.
There are many ways that evidence can be distorted. These are the things that he would call
bad science.
The placebo effect is one thing that stuck out to me. It got me thinking about what has been
going on in the world with Covid. I have always wondered what is actually in those shots or if
there is anything at all. Although people are getting the shot everyone is still getting COVID. I
also felt that when I got the shot I honestly felt more confident to go back outdoors knowing
that I am vaccinated.
Edited by Donte Lilly on Jan 29 at 10:41pm

o

Kamiel Harris
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 5:07pm
Hi Donte,
You bring up so many valid points. I think about Dr. Oz and how he speaks on so
many different health issues and concerns. Would you say that he is providing bad
science? I'll also say that I have my own concerns about the vaccine as well. There
are so many unknowns when it comes to it because those who have gotten it are still
getting COVID.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionFaiga Marrus

Faiga Marrus
Feb 3, 2022Feb 3 at 2:38am
Hello Donte,
Toatlly agree with everything you wrote! and yes same here with me about the covid-
19 shot. I received it a few months back but then when I really think about it. I start
going crazy thinking about what the vaccine is actually doing in my body and what are
its motives.
There is really no exact answer so I guess the best thing we can do is move on with
our lives and put our trust in the medical professionals.


Saif Alrashdi
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 9:08am
This discussion, Pharmaceutical firms, according to Goldacre, manipulate research in order to
claim that their drug is better than another. When they contrast the drug to another brand, they
give the competitor's brand a dose that is too high or too low, and then their drug appears to be
superior. This is actually fascinating because we can understand how people would manipulate
data in order to arrive at a result that benefits them.
Another noteworthy point is that Goldacre states that people and governments are spending
billions of dollars on Tamiflu, despite the fact that studies show that it only lessens flu
symptoms for a few hours. There is no conclusive evidence that it lessens the severity of flu
complications. This demonstrates how faulty science can be prohibitively expensive.


Mubarak Alahbabi
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 9:19am
I'm intrigued by Dr. Goldacre's assertion that patients feel a pain shot works better than pain
medications, despite the fact that both are sugar pills and placebos. In his reasoning, he stated
that a shot appears to be more important, thus it must work harder. This is something I'd like to
learn more about. My sister used to buy well-known pricey make-up brands despite having
good alternatives that included the same elements as the pricier brands. Since of how
consumers are frequently influenced by brands, I believe they became complacent and
assumed the brand will work because it is a luxury brand.
This made me realized how we can be easily manipulated. This is an enlightenment that we
need to be more careful with what we see and read, and really forgo research and further
investigation to ensure there is the feasibility of the claims posted. There is the importance of
peer-review assessment, in many of this research and why we should, as investigators of
science, need to thoroughly evaluate and assess available information and data.
o
Collapse SubdiscussionGia Castro

Gia Castro
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 12:29pm
Hello Mubarak,
It was intriguing how people feel the shots work better than the oral medications.
However, I am guilty of being this as well. The idea of shots are more effective is due
to me being told at a young age by doctors and nurses that they are more sufficient.
Thus making me believe I would feel better sooner. From personal experience, I do
think this is somewhat rue but not with all medications. That aside, peer-review
assessment is a good example of how and why we should do it. It is more studied and
researched by other scientists to find the actual result.

Collapse SubdiscussionHadef Alkaabi
Hadef Alkaabi
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 11:24am
Because science is such an important part of our lives, it's essential to have a basic
understanding of what it is. Regrettably, several people exploit the concept of science to create
revenue or advance a political objective which does not adhere to scientific norms.
Dr. Goldacre tells us how bad science is about how large corporations take advantage of
people to produce profit. Companies do this by offering people items that they will never need,
and in some cases, goods that are toxic. These businesses also aim to persuade the people
that their goods are effective and safe by fabricating stories on the news.
These important points provide us with the knowledge we need to evaluate a clinical
experiment and assess whether this was well-designed enough us to have faith in it.
o

Gia Castro
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 12:22pm
Hello Hadef,
I agree with you that science is exploited by the people. It is bad while also sad of how
it can take place just for money. People should be the number one concern, not the
profit gained. The news and ads are the sole marketers for new experiments out there
today, and because it is on the news people are ready to believe it and run with it.
Overall, I enjoyed reading your piece and agree with you.


Gia Castro
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 12:18pm
The placebo effect that is used with medicines shocked me. Generally, I am aware of different
trials and studies of medicines being done, but not to the extent mentioned in the video. I did
not know the full of extent of how information, statistics, and dose-ranging were done or
changed. It shocks me how many people take the information of medicine and trial studies and
run with it for the hope of it working without researching. However, I would like to believe that
most of these trials work to help people rather than hurt them or pose no improvement. But if
all they do is change the name and the doses of the medication and sell it as some new fancy
treatment, I would believe it most likely does not work. Statistics is a good way to view if it does
work or is not shown on the chart by Dr. Goldarce, which was another thing I did not know
existed. I am glad this was discussed in the video so that I now can be aware and research
more into medicines. It makes me wonder if this is exactly the same was of how generic
medicines are sold and made.
o

Taylor Bistodeau
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 10pm
Hi Gia,
I agree by watching this video I was shocked on how much is actually not know unless
you look into everything specifically. Science is trick and has many concerns with trails
and correct data being shown. I'm also glad we learned this because I believe that
everyone in our class will be more aware also.

Collapse SubdiscussionJacob Hemenway

Jacob Hemenway
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 1:14pm
A topic that Dr. Ben had talked about early on in the ted talk had shocked me. It was when he
was talking about the affects of drinking red wine to help prevent breast cancer. The reason
why it had shocked me was due to the fact that even though it was completely absurd from a
scientist point of view to any normal person they would read the article and probably believe.
This is due to the research the article provides actually conducting experiments in a lab with
ingredients used in wine put against cancer cells and on paper it sounds very legitimate.
However like Dr. Ben stated the research actually doesn't even talk about the affects that
consuming red wine would have on body and what it would actually do to the cancer once
consumed. He even said that any amount of alcohol increases your chance of getting cancer.
The biggest reason why this shocked me is I've been in scenarios where I look up try to look
up some scientific reasoning for dieting and exercising and if a find an article that sounds
professional I would normally believe it without question. It just opens my eyes to see that just
because it looks legitimate doesn't mean it is. The could have conducted experiments that are
similar to what the ear talking about, but in practice they do not work the same why. Or the
article could just be none sense that sounds scientific and professional.
o

Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 1:43pm
I agree how eye opening it is to read an article or document you think you can trust
only to find out it may not have any relevance at all. It makes me think of how much
time people can spend researching to only come up with a muddy clarification on an
issue and then there are people who don't even attempt research and believe what
they are told. With so much contradicting information available to us, it is hard to
decipher.


Delany Trujillo
Jan 30, 2022Jan 30 at 10:15pm
After watching the TedTalk a few times presented by Ben Goldacre, I can better reflect on a
few topics he mentioned. Starting off, I now think epidemiology is fascinating and intriguing, but
it was interesting to hear how no know really knows what it exactly is including myself until the
end of the video. A couple of things stuck out to me, but one, in particular, was the difference
between industry trials and independently sponsored trials. Dr. Goldacre mentioned that the
methods that industry-funded trials used are actually better than independent and that they
always get the answers that they are looking for. He said this was because the negative data
was going missing and being withheld from doctors and patients.
I agree with him that you need the full picture and all the data on a particular treatment to know
whether or not it is truly effective. At first, I was confused and wondered why anyone would
need to hide data in any way because I felt like that was dangerous to not know the truth about
something. I realized once he said if there is publication bias and negative data missing you
could see it on a statistical graph making it pretty obvious why it would be hidden. Overall, I
think it's important to have people like him and other epidemiologists looking out for these
incidents.

Collapse SubdiscussionFaiga Marrus
Faiga Marrus
Feb 3, 2022Feb 3 at 2:33am
This video was super enlightening and I was able to learn a lot of new things. In the video Dr.
Ben Goldacre spoke about the drug reboxetinmesilat that is described to patients. He said that
76% of trials that were done on this drug were withheld from the doctors and patients. This
statement that he made COMPLETELY blew me away. That means that all the times the
results were negative it could've have been that the trail results were just with held and the
doctors were withheld from that information. This not only frightens me but also worries me.
As I consider my self a main stream American citizen, someone who works a job and goes to
college, I rely on the medical professors and doctors to keep me safe. For someone who is not
knowledgeable in medicines I have to but my trust in my doctor that he is giving me the right
medications because he wants to be best for me. But this video really reminded me and made
me aware that I have to not always but my trust in others but to also make sure whatever im
putting into my body is safe for me. I hope to start doing more research on the medicines and
the foods that I put in my body.

Battling Bad Science TED

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Battling Bad Science TED

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Discussion Assignment: "Battling Bad Science" TED TALK

7272 unread replies.7474 replies.

 Terms to review before watching: Epidemiologist, Double-Blind Experiments, Peer-reviewed

Remember your Netiquette:

 Personalize your message (use the person's name).

Reply Reply to Discussion Assignment: "Battling Bad Science" TED TALK

Collapse SubdiscussionSteven Sheahon

Collapse SubdiscussionChana Kalmanson

Collapse SubdiscussionMelissa Christopherson

Collapse SubdiscussionStephan Faller

Collapse SubdiscussionTrayvon Stutson

Collapse SubdiscussionBrittany Hayes

Collapse SubdiscussionGrace Leach

Collapse SubdiscussionStephan Faller

Collapse SubdiscussionSteven Sheahon

Collapse SubdiscussionSaif Alrashdi

Collapse SubdiscussionJacob Hemenway

Collapse SubdiscussionJarvis Omersa

Collapse SubdiscussionDelany Trujillo

Collapse SubdiscussionCamille Carrier

Collapse SubdiscussionMadison Habiger

Collapse SubdiscussionAnnemarie Duncan

Collapse SubdiscussionSteven Sheahon

Collapse SubdiscussionSaif Alrashdi

Collapse SubdiscussionGrace Leach

Collapse SubdiscussionMadison Habiger

Collapse SubdiscussionChana Kalmanson

Collapse SubdiscussionJarvis Omersa

Collapse SubdiscussionDelany Trujillo

Collapse SubdiscussionMadison Habiger

Collapse SubdiscussionCamille Carrier

Collapse SubdiscussionMadigan Snodgrass

Reply Reply to Comment (1 like)

Collapse SubdiscussionAustin Hobbs

Collapse SubdiscussionCamille Carrier

Collapse SubdiscussionAnnemarie Duncan

Collapse SubdiscussionMubarak Alahbabi

Collapse SubdiscussionChana Kalmanson

Reply Reply to Comment

Collapse SubdiscussionKossivi Abalo

Collapse SubdiscussionMubarak Alahbabi

Reply Reply to Comment

Collapse SubdiscussionTrayvon Stutson

Collapse SubdiscussionStephan Faller

Reply Reply to Comment

Collapse SubdiscussionMelissa Christopherson

Collapse SubdiscussionStephan Faller

Collapse SubdiscussionKeana Hernandez

Collapse SubdiscussionMelissa Christopherson

Edited by Melissa Christopherson on Jan 27 at 7:42pm

Collapse SubdiscussionMadigan Snodgrass

Collapse SubdiscussionDelany Trujillo

Collapse SubdiscussionTrayvon Stutson

Edited by Trayvon Stutson on Jan 27 at 6:38pm

Collapse SubdiscussionMelissa Christopherson

Collapse SubdiscussionAustin Hobbs

Collapse SubdiscussionSamantha Ugarcina

Collapse SubdiscussionKossivi Abalo

Collapse SubdiscussionKeana Hernandez

Collapse SubdiscussionSamantha Ugarcina

Collapse SubdiscussionKamiel Harris

Collapse SubdiscussionKamiel Harris

Collapse SubdiscussionMadigan Snodgrass