There's a lot being claimed here that seems to go directly against my experience, I'll focus on what is easily verifiable: >"(even Easterbrook's big '91 paper

There's a lot being claimed here that seems to go directly against my experience, I'll focus on what is easily verifiable: >"(even Easterbrook's big '91 paper on publication bias found that it was for observational and lab studies, but couldn't identify bias in RCT publication.)" I'm not familiar with the Easterbook 1991 paper but that is a pretty strange thing to claim since it is even one of those criticisms that academia has managed to turn into it's own area of study. It didn't look closely at any of these papers but just for example: >"we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. [...] Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702538/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3702538/ >"We conclude that RCTs investigating antipsychotic drugs suffer from substantial outcome reporting bias" https://www.nature.com/articles/tp2017203 https://www.nature.com/articles/tp2017203