Don't (Always) Trust the Science

In the two most recent episodes of "Nutrition Facts with Dr. Greger," Dr. Greger talks about misleading science in both nutrition and pharmaceuticals. In both episodes, Dr. Greger provides example after example of corporations with deep pockets weaponizing science in an attempt to propagandize us with their agendas.

In the episode "Go Easy on the Cheese", Dr. Greger describes many poorly designed studies that were shaped with the particular goal of falsely equating an animal product with the more healthy plant alternative. As an example of what the lobbyists and Big Ag will try to do to trick you, Dr. Greger illustrates a study where scientists showed that tofu has the same impact on blood cholesterol as beef. The trick is that they pumped the tofu sandwich full of lard to give it the same fat content as the beef, which is obviously not representative of a real tofu lunch! Additionally, the study was sponsored by people with a vested interest in the commercial success of beef. Therefore, when reading about a study, particularly one with surprising outcomes, make sure to understand the experiment design and the experiment sponsors.

In the episode "How Effective is Chemotherapy", Dr. Greger opens by informing the audience that most cancer therapies have not been proven to improve cancer outcomes in patients, even though they are FDA approved. The trick here is that they only need to show that the drug or therapy is effective at reducing the size of a tumor, for example, which is what's known as a "secondary endpoint." This secondary endpoint is used as an approximate predictor of the primary endpoint, which is the length of life or improvement in quality of life. One reason this is a bad measure of success is that the therapies used in cancer treatment can be incredibly toxic to the rest of the body - sure, the drug is successful at shrinking the cancer, but what good is that if it shuts down your organs at the same time!? Another way that Big Pharma will mislead consumers is through the phrase "statistically significant," which simply means that the results are very likely not to have been caused by chance. It does not mean that the results were particularly impactful or beneficial, the way we use "significant" in common English. For example, one drug that had a "significant" effect on the length of survival took patients from 2.9 months survival to 3.2. Three extra weeks is three extra weeks, but hardly "significant" - especially when considering possible side-effects or financial cost.

Science and the scientific method are fantastic methods of learning more about the world around and within us. However, it is important to be skeptical of science, particularly when that "science" is published or sponsored by people who stand to make financial or ideological gain.