> whenever you read the percentage of patients that are noted as having a particular side effect from a medicine, the real percentage is much higher.

The patients self-report their own side effects, then the numbers go into the paper.

Are you suggesting the study operators are tampering with numbers before publishing?

> Are you suggesting the study operators are tampering with numbers before publishing?

No, but did you not read the posted article? Firstly, trials don't select participants unbiasedly. Secondly, many trials are not long enough for the side effects to manifest. Thirdly, I have enough real world experience.

Real world experience doesn't count on HN health articles. If it wasn't documented by a researcher paid via funding from his industry leaders, or a government official trying to fast track his hiring in the public sector for $800k a year, it basically didn't happen.

This is why I encourage the reporting of any and all side-effects of any treatment to the FDA. Information withheld cannot be collected.

https://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch-fda-safety-information-a...

And this just goes to reinforcing the beliefs of those who are skeptical of medical research. "Trust the science" is all well and good in theory except when the scientists are telling you a selective, cherry-picked story.

Strange how that line of thinking always winds up in places like "vaccines are bad" or "ivermectin cures COVID".

It correctly observes that experts are not always right, and often incorrectly responds by turning to loud, persuasive quackery.

No relation (except in your winding mind).