“Evidence-based medicine is actually so corrupt as to be useless or harmful,” Marcia Angell wrote in 2009. The statement was less a revelation than something many already knew, but it made waves because of its source. Angell, a medical insider, had spent two decades as the editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine.
Dr. Jason Fung is also a medical insider who has become wary of scientific research that purports to be “evidence based.” A well-known nephrologist and author, Fung often speaks about Type-2 diabetes reversal and the metabolic effects of intermittent fasting, but in this presentation from Dec. 15, 2018, he turns his focus toward the many ways the foundations of evidence-based medicine have become corrupted by financial conflicts of interest.
The first conflicts of interest he highlights pertain to the corruption of doctors. Practicing physicians who accept gifts from Big Pharma are 225-335% more likely to prescribe drugs from the gift-giving company than those who do not, Fung explains.
The corruption of doctors in prestigious universities is even worse, he claims. “There's a clear correlation: The more prestigious a doctor, the more money they're getting from the pharmaceutical.” Anecdotally, he says, this means you may be better off seeking medical advice from a family physician than from a Harvard professor; the former probably just accepted a $10 pen from Big Pharma while the latter is on the take for $500,000. “It just is a terrible system,” he says. “Yet, these people are the people that are in the newspaper. They're the ones that are teaching medical students, are the ones who are teaching the — the dietitians, the pharmacist — everybody.”
The most insidious corruption affects the published research on particular drugs. Fung highlights the influence industry can have when it finds a medical journal editor willing to take its money. Another problem arises in the form of industry-funded medical research. This conflict of interest leads to the selective publication of positive trials, which can skew the science on particular drugs and lead to unnecessary or even dangerous overprescription. Fung notes how statin prescriptions illustrate the scope of this particular problem.
“We accept this of drug companies … but the problem is that people die,” Fung says. He later adds: “You can make arguments that sugar is a health food, that opioids are good for you … but it harms patients, and we always have to remember that at the end of the day, this is not why we became doctors. The reason we became doctors was to help people, but we're not until we kind of set those same rules as everybody else.”
summerizer
Summary
The video transcript explores the pervasive issue of financial conflicts of interest within the medical profession, highlighting how corporate influence, primarily from pharmaceutical and food industries, compromises the integrity of medical practice, research, education, and public trust. The speaker emphasizes that doctors, who should be champions of patient health, are increasingly viewed as part of the problem due to their financial entanglements with industry stakeholders. Examples from recent high-profile cases—such as opioid overprescription, biased cancer research leadership, and sugar industry-funded studies—illustrate how corporate money distorts scientific evidence and clinical guidelines.
The physician speaks candidly about how financial incentives like gifts, consulting fees, travel, and speaking engagements subtly bias doctors and researchers, even when they are unaware of this influence. Academic institutions and medical journals are heavily corrupted, with prestigious professors receiving millions from industry and journals depending on pharmaceutical companies’ reprint purchases. This systemic corruption leads to biased publication practices, selective reporting, distorted clinical guidelines, and ultimately patient harm.
A recurring theme is the lack of transparency and accountability. Many influential experts fail to disclose conflicts of interest, and research favorable to industry interests is promoted while contrary evidence is suppressed or unpublished. This undermines the very foundation of evidence-based medicine, making it untrustworthy. The transcript also describes the societal consequences of this broken system, such as the opioid crisis and mismanagement of chronic diseases.
The speaker concludes by advocating for strict reforms: doctors, especially those in academic and guideline-setting roles, should not receive industry money, similar to prohibitions applied to judges, police officers, and teachers. Removing financial conflicts of interest is essential to restoring trust, protecting patient welfare, and preserving the credibility of the medical profession.
Highlights
- 💊 Financial conflicts of interest deeply corrupt medical practice, research, and education.
- 🏥 High-profile institutions and renowned doctors frequently receive vast sums from pharmaceutical companies.
- 📉 Selective publishing and biased clinical guidelines distort evidence-based medicine’s reliability.
- 💰 Industry gifts, consulting fees, and sponsored symposia influence doctors’ prescribing habits unknowingly.
- 🍬 Sugar and opioid industries manipulate research outcomes to protect business interests.
- 🏛️ Medical journals rely heavily on pharmaceutical companies for income through reprints, compromising their integrity.
- 🚫 Reform is needed: doctors and guideline panelists should be prohibited from receiving industry funding to restore medical credibility. Key Insights
💉 Doctors’ Roles Corrupted by Industry Funding: Physicians, expected to prioritize patient health, are often financially entangled with pharmaceutical companies, which compromises medical advice—seen in opioid overprescription and biased cancer research leadership. The conflict of interest makes doctors inadvertent agents of corporate agendas rather than true patient advocates.
📊 Selective Publication Undermines Evidence-Based Medicine: Significant evidence shows research favorable to industry is more likely to be published, while unfavorable studies remain unpublished or selectively reported. For example, antidepressant trials published in journals showed mostly positive outcomes, but FDA data revealed a balanced or negative picture. This undermines clinicians’ ability to make informed decisions.
🏫 Academic Medicine Largely Corrupted by Pharma Money: Prestigious researchers and professors at top universities often receive millions from industry, raising questions about the impartiality of their teachings and guidelines. Universities, once seen as bastions of unbiased knowledge, are among the worst offenders in the conflict of interest landscape.
🎓 Medical Education and Mentorship Perpetuate the Problem: Medical students observe and internalize the normalization of industry relationships, such as attending industry-sponsored conferences, creating a cycle where new generations of physicians accept these conflicts as routine.
📰 Medical Journals and Editors are Financially Compromised: Editors of influential journals receive substantial payments from pharmaceutical companies, influencing which studies are published. Journals also profit massively from selling reprints of favorable drug studies, creating a financial incentive to bias content and preserve industry relationships over scientific integrity.
🚦 Biased Clinical Guidelines Harm Patients and Physicians: Guideline committees often have members with financial conflicts, promoting drug use that lacks compelling evidence. Differing guidelines—for example, on PSA screening and antidepressant use—depict how conflicts sway recommendations, ultimately pressuring physicians to follow pharma-influenced standards or face professional repercussions.
⚖️ Necessary Reforms Mirror Other Professions’ Conflict Rules: Just as teachers, judges, and police officers cannot accept certain gifts due to ethical standards, similar rules must apply strictly to doctors, researchers, and medical journals. Only by severing financial ties with industry can medicine regain credibility and truly serve patient interests.
This comprehensive discussion of financial conflicts in medicine calls for urgent systemic reforms to protect public health and the integrity
.