The source that you posted supported OP's point which you were trying to argue against. I didn't have to evade your point, your point missed .

You are unintelligible, and your sources supported exactly what OP was talking about.

You're the one who's dodging, clearly you don't understand what the OP was trying to say or the fact that your own source confirms it. Sounds like your source was a little heavy for you to digest mentally.

Bias can entail manipulation in the analysis or reporting of findings. Selective or distorted reporting is a typical form of such bias

This is what this discussion is about, and it also happens to be featured in your source (which you may not have read entirely)

Also from your source (which I read in its entirety)

For example, with large measurement errors relationships are lost in noise

Here the source gives one example of how lost results can happen. Note, this source is not defending scientists or damning publishers.

or investigators use data inefficiently or fail to notice statistically significant relationships,

Again, another reason as to why results could be lost. Not claiming corruption or suppression of results.

or there may be conflicts of interest that tend to “bury” significant findings

Oh look, this is what we were talking about before you came and posted this source seemingly to discredit the original post.

There is no good large-scale empirical evidence on how frequently such reverse bias may occur across diverse research fields. However, it is probably fair to say that reverse bias is not as common.

There is very little large scale empirical evidence on bias in general, because it is an abstract.

Now let us suppose that the investigators manipulate their design, analyses, and reporting so as to make more relationships cross the p = 0.05 threshold even though this would not have been crossed with a perfectly adhered to design and analysis and with perfect comprehensive reporting of the results, strictly according to the original study plan. Such manipulation could be done, for example, with serendipitous inclusion or exclusion of certain patients or controls, post hoc subgroup analyses, investigation of genetic contrasts that were not originally specified, changes in the disease or control definitions, and various combinations of selective or distorted reporting of the results. Commercially available “data mining” packages actually are proud of their ability to yield statistically significant results through data dredging. In the presence of bias with u = 0.10, the post-study probability that a research finding is true is only 4.4 × 10−4. Furthermore, even in the absence of any bias, when ten independent research teams perform similar experiments around the world, if one of them finds a formally statistically significant association, the probability that the research finding is true is only 1.5 × 10−4, hardly any higher than the probability we had before any of this extensive research was undertaken!

This speaks about manipulating experiments and results (laboratory bias) and datamining which can be considered 'publishing' bias. It then goes on to mention that with or without bias, the probability that a scientific finding is true is very low.

Corollary 5: The greater the financial and other interests and prejudices in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Conflicts of interest and prejudice may increase bias, u. Conflicts of interest are very common in biomedical research [26], and typically they are inadequately and sparsely reported [26,27]. Prejudice may not necessarily have financial roots. Scientists in a given field may be prejudiced purely because of their belief in a scientific theory or commitment to their own findings. Many otherwise seemingly independent, university-based studies may be conducted for no other reason than to give physicians and researchers qualifications for promotion or tenure. Such nonfinancial conflicts may also lead to distorted reported results and interpretations. Prestigious investigators may suppress via the peer review process the appearance and dissemination of findings that refute their findings, thus condemning their field to perpetuate false dogma. Empirical evidence on expert opinion shows that it is extremely unreliable [28].

And once again, this study denies the point you tried to make by posting it.

I really don't know what your point is anymore, I thought I did, but now I don't. You're arguing about nothing. Your sources support the opposite of your argument.

You provide no proof that the article makes a false claim, you don't even provide a decent definition of publishing bias.

The article writes:

We've been deceived about the truth about treatments that we've used widely over a long period, in very large numbers of individuals, because of the selective publication of results that are favourable to the product ," says Henry, a professor of health systems data at U of T's Institute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation.

This is your claim:

However they obviously misinterpreted the definition off wikipedia(/other generic source) to think to mean that it is the scientist who makes that the results are unpublished whereas in reality it is the publisher who simply doesn't give a rat's ass about publishing the results (journals only have so much space per issue)

PLEASE provide proof for that statement, that ONLY the publishers are at fault and never the scientists. Give me fucking sources, and stop trying to confuse the conversation, you're clearly running around in circles.

I understand what you fucking wrote, but it has no purpose being written HERE trying to discredit THE ORIGINAL POST.

IF you want to talk about "findings not published in medical journals" THEN MAKE A NEW POST. Stop trying to use THIS post.

How about you just go away and stop diverting, redirecting, hijacking this conversation?

This post is not talking about what you are talking about, stop trying to divert the subject. If you want to talk about information not published in JOURNALS of medicine which deliberately cut things out for brevity, then make a new post. Here we are talking about CLINICAL TRIALS whose results were NOT EVEN INCLUDED in the study PRE-JOURNAL-PUBLISHING.

For fuck's sake, man, just STOP.

Stop trying to mislead this conversation. Scientists can be paid off too.

unpublished in the journal which comes after the fact, but all of that research is still available and documented. We are talking about results that were SCRUBBED.

When it comes to clinical trials, there is a lot negative data getting buried. Amgen famously was only able to reproduce a small fraction of cancer drug trials. Negative result in a drug trial means your drug doesnt work. But on the flip side, the CDC in the US conspired to destroy positive results showing a link between autism and the MMR vax. They actually had meetings to destroy data. You may have heard about that too.
Some journals have their own positive result bias, absolutely. There is at least one journal of negative results that I know of but in biology it seems a lot more attention is given to positive results. Some of that makes sense, if an experiment discovers nothing it might be inherently less interesting, but it depends on what kind of experiment you're doing. With clinical trials, a negative result is very important. In physics, maybe not as much.

I agree with you. This story isn't really a conspiracy to be honest. If you don't know how the 'system' works then it looks like one.

The Universities explained that the way they tracked results being published doesn't catch many of the negative results. Those negative results never hit journals but they are prepared and made available. Researchers in the field dig up every study they can find, including the unpublished, as they work to build theories and think of future trials that might work. Researchers talk directly to others in the field and dig up studies that failed because they don't want to duplicate work already done and they want to build better theories.

Sorry, the sharing of failed studies isn't widely 'published' but it happens and there isn't a conspiracy to hide most trial results. I should qualify that somewhat because large companies with shareholders keep results private of course.

Sources?

This also isn't what we were talking about, it's irrelevant. We are talking about results that were never even reported because they showed the object being evaluated in trials to be questionable, dangerous, ineffective etc.

https://archive.is/RCNNY :

'We've been deceived': Many clinical trial results are never published - Health - CBC News

'The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) now requires most clinical trials to register and post results on ClinicalTrials.gov. ', "TrialsTracker maintains a list of all the trials registered on the world's leading clinical trials database and tracks how many of them are updated with results."

'Every year, thousands of Canadians sign up to participate in clinical trials, offering their bodies to further the development of important medical advances like new drugs or devices. '

'Using this method, the researchers found that between 2006 and 2014, 45 per cent of the clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov — or nearly 12,000 studies — are missing results. ', "Both the University of British Columbia and University Health Network — the two Canadian institutions with the highest number of missing results on TrialsTracker — point out, in statements sent to CBC News, that the site's algorithm will miss some results."

This has been an automated message.

This is one of the primary ways scientific results are cooked. The failure to publish negative results represents one of the biggest systemic failures and methods of misconduct in modern science. Researchers will do an experiment 10 times and pick the one anomalous result that they like, and publish that one. Often drug companies do this on purpose using small sample sizes, too few animals, etc.

Negative results are just not that sexy I guess, and nobody wants to risk admitting that their experiment failed, or have the peanut gallery point out that they did this or that thing wrong with their cells, or whatever.

end result is a giant pile of bogus positive results that are not reproducible.