I've worked with nice. several of my students still do. We've kicked out of the NHS quite a few meds the industry and academics were wrong about, based on the evidence, not what the industry/academics said before they were shown to be not correct.
The whole posit of this article is wrong. "acedemics said so" is not evidence based medicine, it is one small facit of it, and the author matters, no one trusts "sponsored by" papers, NIHR is constantly publishing counter evidence. Some of that even ends up in court (e.g. Avastin)
This I totally agree with. I've not much experience with the UK system, but I disagree that publication bias is solved, at least regarding the scientific literature at large.
Well. I guess you could probably pin some blame on publication bias for the massive misinvestment that went into the recent dementia meds that all failed at phase 3. Something made them get the science badly wrong.
I was talking specifically in the context of evidence based medicine for regulatory decision making, which is the process that replaced blue envelopes full of money or throwing acedemic papers at an important politician whose relative had the disease that came before it.
