That is a very odd way of looking at the issue. The scientific literature certainly has a bias in favor of publishing positive results rather than failures. Ho

That is a very odd way of looking at the issue. The scientific literature certainly has a bias in favor of publishing positive results rather than failures. However, the scientific literature in no way affects FDA/regulatory approval. Drug/treatment candidates that fail regulatory approval are not on the market. As far as negative results being "distorted" to present "positive results" is concerned, yes it is quite common to take a patient population that overall fails to show statistically significant benefit and see if there is a subset that does in fact show a statistically significant benefit. One could call that p-hunting, but as long as it is followed up and confirmed, it doesn't seem like a nefarious thing to do.