The politics of science

boardswalker

ORLY? wrote: »

Pharmaceutical companies are only interested in products that are proven to be of some benefit and to be overall benificial for patients, otherwise they get sued and are banned from selling the product and make no money.

That is simply naive.

There is plenty of evidence in existance showing that pharmaceutical companies have put out dangerous products. Where have you been for the last few years?

I posted a link to a talk given by an eminent scientist, to members of the scientific community, highlighting how, and why, the “scientific method” has become so manipulated and willfully distorted by the drug industry.

There are many scientists out there who are concerned about the influence of pharmaceutical companies.

Kurtosis

boardswalker wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence in existance showing that pharmaceutical companies have put out dangerous products. Where have you been for the last few years?

Are you referring to medicinal products that have been marketed and then withdrawn from the market, or are you suggesting there is evidence that pharma companies have knowingly marketed harmful products? If it's the latter, I'd be interested to read some of the evidence that exists to support this.

ORLY?

boardswalker wrote: »

There is plenty of evidence in existance showing that pharmaceutical companies have put out dangerous products. Where have you been for the last few years?

EVERY product that a pharmaceutical product puts out is potentially dangerous. Unlike homeopathy, pharmaceuticals contain compounds that actually can have an affect on the body and so should be used with caution and in appropriate cases only.

boardswalker

Many scientists are becoming increasing concerned about the pharmaceutical industry distorting scientific evidence.

If you are interested in this, and are open minded, have a look at this video http://thesciencenetwork.org/programs/beyond-belief-candles-in-the-dark/beatrice-golomb

An eminent scientist, Beatrice Golomb, was doing research on statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, in which she was initially perplexed between the disparities that she saw between the published evidence, review papers, guidelines and follow-on papers after trials were published.

She was perplexed about how these data could draw people to certain conclusions that they appear to be coming to. She would ask her colleagues how could they have read this paper and have come to this conclusion.

Over time as she began examining the evidence relating to conflict of interest and published results, she began to see that there were forces at play that both lead to disparities between the evidence that was published relative to the “truth” of the evidence that was procured. She also found disparities between the secondary representations of that evidence and the evidence that was published.

She concluded that there is actually widespread evidence even within the medical literature which shows that these forces can lead to qualitative differences in the conclusions relative to the fact.

"For example, FDA analysts now have access to clinical trials whether or not they are published because of clinical trial registries that some journals now require. They require that a child be registered in one of these registries and its conclusion be allowed to get published in a major journal. 2

Now, that doesn‟t actually require that those results then be published but at least now there is an opportunity for the FDA to get access to the existence of those studies and sometimes to have access to the evidence from the studies.

So, the FDA conducted an analysis of antidepressant drug trials and found that out of 38 trials for which the evidence appeared favorable, 37 had been published, whereas out of 36 trials for which the evidence were unfavorable toward antidepressant drugs, 22 weren‟t published at all and 11 were published in a way that misleadingly conveyed the outcome as though it were favorable.

Therefore, research that goes to the published evidence would result to over 90% of publications which were favorable relative to the truth, or at least 50% as determined by the FDA analysts.

So, essentially, the difference between unanimity and a coin toss with readers of the literature is that they appear to see that the results were consistently favorable relative to actual trials. .......

So that‟s an example of how the evidence we see can be dramatically different from the evidence that was procured and there are actually a number of mechanisms that lead the procured evidence to already have disparities that generally favor treatment benefits relative to truth.

Those rely in part on factors like how subjects were selected for participation in clinical trials, which often end up leading to people who are non-representatively unlikely to experience adverse effects and sometimes more likely to reap benefits. Often, for very noble reasons like protection of subject against harms, etcetera in clinical trials, and cost efficiency by selecting those subjects that show the biggest benefit etcetera, the result is that the findings of the clinical trials are not representative of the more general population to whom the treatment will then be given."

Scary stuff, no?

There's lot's more interesting stuff in that video.

Among open-minded people, there is a whole debate going on about the reliability of scientific research into pharmaceuticals.

Hope this helps.

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

Are you referring to medicinal products that have been marketed and then withdrawn from the market, or are you suggesting there is evidence that pharma companies have knowingly marketed harmful products? If it's the latter, I'd be interested to read some of the evidence that exists to support this.

Please use google.
Here's a start http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/25/2576
New England Journal of Medicine - is that good enough?

Here's one quote "Yet as we learned, even a company like Merck can direct its sales force to provide clinicians with a distorted picture of the relevant scientific evidence."

Here's another "Merck further instructed its representatives to show those doctors who asked whether rofecoxib caused myocardial infarction a pamphlet called "The Cardiovascular Card." This pamphlet, prepared by Merck's marketing department, indicated that rofecoxib was associated with 1/8 the mortality from cardiovascular causes of that found with other antiinflammatory drugs.

The Cardiovascular Card provided a misleading picture of the evidence on rofecoxib. The card did not include any data from the VIGOR study. Instead, it presented a pooled analysis of preapproval studies, in most of which low doses of rofecoxib were used for a short time. None of these studies were designed to assess cardiovascular safety, and none included adjudication of cardiovascular events. In fact, FDA experts had publicly expressed "serious concerns" to the agency's advisory committee about using the preapproval studies as evidence of the drug's cardiovascular safety."

How could you not know about this.
It came up in an earlier thread.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

Please use google.
Here's a start http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/25/2576
New England Journal of Medicine - is that good enough?

Here's one quote "Yet as we learned, even a company like Merck can direct its sales force to provide clinicians with a distorted picture of the relevant scientific evidence."

Here's another "Merck further instructed its representatives to show those doctors who asked whether rofecoxib caused myocardial infarction a pamphlet called "The Cardiovascular Card." This pamphlet, prepared by Merck's marketing department, indicated that rofecoxib was associated with 1/8 the mortality from cardiovascular causes of that found with other antiinflammatory drugs.

The Cardiovascular Card provided a misleading picture of the evidence on rofecoxib. The card did not include any data from the VIGOR study. Instead, it presented a pooled analysis of preapproval studies, in most of which low doses of rofecoxib were used for a short time. None of these studies were designed to assess cardiovascular safety, and none included adjudication of cardiovascular events. In fact, FDA experts had publicly expressed "serious concerns" to the agency's advisory committee about using the preapproval studies as evidence of the drug's cardiovascular safety."

How could you not know about this.
It came up in an earlier thread.

So both a well respected journal and the FDA called them on this?

You realise these are the exact oversights I'm talking about?

boardswalker

King Mob wrote: »

So assuming this is a valid argument, what's stopping homoeopaths doing the work and providing the evidence?

The best way of answering this is to give you a quote from Dr Beatrice Golomb.

BEATRICE GOLOMB is a Professor of Medicine at UCSD. Her research is in medicine, health (including work at RAND), military health defense. Her training is in physics and medicine (BS, graduate fellowship offers from Harvard and Cal Tech, PhD in neurobiology UCSD, MD from UCSD and board certified in Internal Medicine, chief resident in internal medicine at the VA in West LA, and a Fellowship in epidemiology/health services research with the RAND/UCLA Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholarship Program.) She currently divides her time between being PI on a major NIH-funded clinical trial on the side effects of statins, the Scientific Director of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses and clinical practice.

So why is there not more independent research being done?

“It’s very expensive to do those studies,” Golomb explains. “The only other source of funding for reasonable sized studies is the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

We approached the NIH to conduct a study to see whether coenzyme Q10 might mitigate muscle side effects of statins, and we were told by NIH officers that they wouldn’t even consider to do the study unless we ask the drug company to supply the statin…

So I contacted the NIH and I said, “I’m really trying to have a career free of drug company conflict of interest, would it be such a problem to have one study that doesn’t have a drug company involved in it?” And they said, somewhat reasonably, that their interest is in leveraging their funding and therefore, no, they would not consider an application unless we asked the drug company to supply the drug, which of course already set some level of conflict of interest.”

So, unfortunately, the need of the government to leverage their investment has the unfortunate side effect of also producing ties to industry. Clearly, a pharmaceutical company is not going to jump at the chance to give their drug to an independent researcher who may find that the drug has significant problems.

boardswalker

King Mob wrote: »

So both a well respected journal and the FDA called them on this?

You realise these are the exact oversights I'm talking about?

You need to check how long the drug was on the market and how much damage was done before you think the actions of the journal and the FDA were effective.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

The best way of answering this is to give you a quote from Dr Beatrice Golomb.

BEATRICE GOLOMB is a Professor of Medicine at UCSD. Her research is in medicine, health (including work at RAND), military health defense. Her training is in physics and medicine (BS, graduate fellowship offers from Harvard and Cal Tech, PhD in neurobiology UCSD, MD from UCSD and board certified in Internal Medicine, chief resident in internal medicine at the VA in West LA, and a Fellowship in epidemiology/health services research with the RAND/UCLA Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholarship Program.) She currently divides her time between being PI on a major NIH-funded clinical trial on the side effects of statins, the Scientific Director of the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Illnesses and clinical practice.

So why is there not more independent research being done?

“It’s very expensive to do those studies,” Golomb explains. “The only other source of funding for reasonable sized studies is the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

We approached the NIH to conduct a study to see whether coenzyme Q10 might mitigate muscle side effects of statins, and we were told by NIH officers that they wouldn’t even consider to do the study unless we ask the drug company to supply the statin…

So I contacted the NIH and I said, “I’m really trying to have a career free of drug company conflict of interest, would it be such a problem to have one study that doesn’t have a drug company involved in it?” And they said, somewhat reasonably, that their interest is in leveraging their funding and therefore, no, they would not consider an application unless we asked the drug company to supply the drug, which of course already set some level of conflict of interest.”

So, unfortunately, the need of the government to leverage their investment has the unfortunate side effect of also producing ties to industry. Clearly, a pharmaceutical company is not going to jump at the chance to give their drug to an independent researcher who may find that the drug has significant problems.

I fail to see the relevance here.

The NHS invested 12 million into alternative medicine last year.
Why did none of this go into proper research of homoeopathy?

You need to check how long the drug was on the market and how much damage was done before you think the actions of the journal and the FDA were effective.

Could you please explain how you know it was harmful in the first place?

ORLY?

boardswalker wrote: »

Please use google.
Here's a start http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/25/2576
New England Journal of Medicine - is that good enough?

Here's one quote "Yet as we learned, even a company like Merck can direct its sales force to provide clinicians with a distorted picture of the relevant scientific evidence."

Here's another "Merck further instructed its representatives to show those doctors who asked whether rofecoxib caused myocardial infarction a pamphlet called "The Cardiovascular Card." This pamphlet, prepared by Merck's marketing department, indicated that rofecoxib was associated with 1/8 the mortality from cardiovascular causes of that found with other antiinflammatory drugs.

The Cardiovascular Card provided a misleading picture of the evidence on rofecoxib. The card did not include any data from the VIGOR study. Instead, it presented a pooled analysis of preapproval studies, in most of which low doses of rofecoxib were used for a short time. None of these studies were designed to assess cardiovascular safety, and none included adjudication of cardiovascular events. In fact, FDA experts had publicly expressed "serious concerns" to the agency's advisory committee about using the preapproval studies as evidence of the drug's cardiovascular safety."

How could you not know about this.
It came up in an earlier thread.

Yep! That mistake cost them billions, it's not one they're likely to repeat. So, here you have an example of the ongoing research and investigation into the pros and cons of particular drug therapies, in this case rofecoxib. Where is the evidence from the homeopathic side?

Homeopathy doesn't need to be tested against another drug (which is where the expense argument falls down), it could just be tested against a placebo.

Where are the trials of homeopathy vs. placebo?

boardswalker

King Mob wrote: »

Could you please explain how you know it was harmful in the first place?

Google is your friend. Please, do some research.
How could you be the only person on the planet not to know about vioxx?

Read something about it here http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61937E20100210.

Listen, there is loads of info in the public domain about problems causes by pharmaceutical products that were approved by regulatory authorities and were later found to be harmful. In many cases, the manufacturers knew of the problems but ignored warnings for commercial reasons.

Google "pharmaceuticals withdrawn safety".

New York Times have many articles on this area. Its not something new.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

Google is your friend. Please, do some research.
How could you be the only person on the planet not to know about vioxx?

Read something about it here http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE61937E20100210.

Listen, there is loads of info in the public domain about problems causes by pharmaceutical products that were approved by regulatory authorities and were later found to be harmful. In many cases, the manufacturers knew of the problems but ignored warnings for commercial reasons.

Google "pharmaceuticals withdrawn safety".

New York Times have many articles on this area. Its not something new.

Oh I know there's many horror stories you can dig up.
But the fact is the only reason you know that this particular drug was harmful was because of a scientific study.

So how can you say that the scientific method is unreliable then cite a scientific source to back it up?

And can you explain how any of this is in anyway related to homoeopathy?

boardswalker

King Mob wrote: »

So because some doctor says some evidence might be suspect, magic exists?

Some Doctor! Is that what you think?
Speaking to an audience of scientists.
Published on the Science Network site.
Some Doctor!

King Mob wrote: »

Every single scientific paper could be proven wrong tomorrow, but there still wouldn't any evidence that homoeopathy is any better than a placebo.

As posted earlier, you can't find evidence if you don't look for it.

King Mob wrote: »

The term open minded gets brandy around alot, but rarely at the people who deserve it.

By "brandy" - did you mean "bandied".
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/BANDYABOUT
Now I know what I'm dealing with. Thanks

Kurtosis

boardswalker wrote: »

Please use google.

If you have read the forum's charter, you will know that if you make a claim, the onus rests on you to back up that claim. It's not up to me to google around to prove/disprove your claim.

Here's a start http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/352/25/2576
New England Journal of Medicine - is that good enough?

Here's one quote "Yet as we learned, even a company like Merck can direct its sales force to provide clinicians with a distorted picture of the relevant scientific evidence."

...

How could you not know about this.
It came up in an earlier thread.

I did know about this (though I can't see its earlier mention in this particular thread). This sort of case and a number of other similar ones, I covered in the first part of my previous post ("medicinal products that have been marketed and then withdrawn from the market").

This is a necessary evil when considering products that actually have a pharmacological effect. Are you familiar with the licensing procedure for medicinal products? There are systems in place that assess the risk-benefit ratio of any medicinal products that are to be licensed (administered by the FDA in the US and by the IMB here). Due to the limits of pre-marketing data, post-marketing data is monitored and when new evidence (from trials, adverse reaction reporting for healthcare professionals etc.) comes to light, the licensing authority may re-assess the risk-benefit ratio of the product, and if they deem it to be unfavourable, they will impose a variance on the licence of the medicine (perhaps limiting its use to only certain patient groups) or suspend or even withdraw the licence. This responsibility rests with the FDA/IMB etc., and so any (mis)information provided to prescribers will not effect the marketing status of the product.

Anyone who considers pharmaceutical companies to be completely altruistic is very naive. Hence why the current regulator framework exists and is necessary.

Sorry, this is very off-topic. Homeopathic products are not exerted to the same rigours of licensing by the IMB.While medicinal products must demonstrate quality, safety and efficacy, homeopathic products are exempted from the requirement to provide proof of efficacy, which says a lot really...

boardswalker

King Mob wrote: »

So how can you say that the scientific method is unreliable then cite a scientific source to back it up?

Reliable means that we can rely upon it.
We obviously can't rely on something that can throw up such errors.
Thanks for making that point for me.

Death caused by a drug is pretty good proof that the drug was dangerous.
You don't need a science qualification to know that. Do you?

ORLY?

boardswalker wrote: »

By "brandy" - did you mean "bandied".
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/BANDYABOUT
Now I know what I'm dealing with. Thanks

And now WE all know what WE'RE dealing with, though it was fairly obvious anyway. Thanks and goodbye.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

Some Doctor! Is that what you think?
Speaking to an audience of scientists.
Published on the Science Network site.
Some Doctor!

You do know what an argument from authority is right?

boardswalker wrote: »

As posted earlier, you can't find evidence if you don't look for it.

And people have already looked. All the good studies show that homoeopathy is no better than placebo.

There is not one good peer reviewed study showing that it has any effect.

Decrying the evils of modern medicine won't change this fact.

boardswalker wrote: »

By "brandy" - did you mean "bandied".
http://www.wordwebonline.com/en/BANDYABOUT
Now I know what I'm dealing with. Thanks

****, bad spelling. My points are now somehow invalid.
You got me there alright.

boardswalker

ORLY? wrote: »

Yep! That mistake cost them billions, it's not one they're likely to repeat. So, here you have an example of the ongoing research and investigation into the pros and cons of particular drug therapies, in this case rofecoxib. Where is the evidence from the homeopthic side?

Homeopathy doesn't need to be tested against another drug (which is where the expense arguement falls down), it could just be tested against a placebo.

Where are the trials of homeopathy vs. placebo?

There is evidence that Merck knew for at least three years that Vioxx was dangerous and ignored it. You can't paint them as shining knights now.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

Reliable means that we can rely upon it.
We obviously can't rely on something that can throw up such errors.
Thanks for making that point for me.

But the way you use to show it's unreliable is based on the same thing you claim is unreliable!

You know this drug is dangerous because scientific studies show that it is, therefore scientific studies are unreliable.
Brilliant logic.

boardswalker wrote: »

Death caused by a drug is pretty good proof that the drug was dangerous.
You don't need a science qualification to know that. Do you?

And people die in cars, therefore cars are dangerous.
People die eating peanuts, therefore eating is dangerous.

Oh and Homoeopathy has been linked to many many deaths as well btw.

boardswalker

King Mob wrote: »

You do know what an argument from authority is right?

The authority comes from all the withdrawals, all of the legal cases losts etc.

If you looked at the video, you would see the evidence that has been marshalled to highlight the dangerous influence of the pharmaceutical industry on scientific research.

If you don't want to watch the video, fine. It's your loss.
They're not highlighting this information in Medical School or Physicians CPD, that's for sure.

boardswalker

King Mob wrote: »

You know this drug is dangerous because scientific studies show that it is, therefore scientific studies are unreliable.
Brilliant logic

I know because people died and their deaths were documented.

By the way, if, as was posted earlier, a homeopathic remedy has no effect on the body, how can it kill?

Are we trying to have it both ways. Homeopathic remedies do nothing and homeopathic remedies kill.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

The authority comes from all the withdrawals, all of the legal cases losts etc.

So then no you don't know what an argument from authority is.

boardswalker wrote: »

If you looked at the video, you would see the evidence that has been marshalled to highlight the dangerous influence of the pharmaceutical industry on scientific research.

If you don't want to watch the video, fine. It's your loss.
They're not highlighting this information in Medical School or Physicians CPD, that's for sure.

And again, the only way you know, and can know, that these withdrawn drugs are harmful at all is because of scientific research.
But then you say scientific research is not reliable, so then how do you know that the drugs are harmful..

Unless of course you only believe certain scientific research....

SomeDose

Forget it penguin...myself and Tallaght01 had this exact same argument with boardswalker in a thread months ago. Vioxx et al were dredged up back then too. It seems to be a common tactic of CAM advocates to bring up the failings of conventional medicines whenever evidence in favour of CAM is requested.

Actually, boardswalker, I think now would be a good time for you to declare:

1) Any relevant qualifications in Health / Science you may have (be it CAM, conventional or otherwise).
2) Whether or not you have any financial interest in or ties to the CAM industry.

Most of the regular posters here have made known their training, profession & area of work / study so I think it's only fair.

Purely in the interest of transparency, like.

locum-motion

Mod note:

Post no 4 on this thread is essentially one that was posted in the "Science of Homeopathy" thread by Boardswalker. I disallowed it there, and asked BW to start a new thread to discuss this topic.

The remaining posts here have been moved from the Homeopathy thread, as they are discussing the same topics as I had disallowed.

Unfortunately, 3 of those posts had been made before BW set up this new thread, and so when they were moved, the system put them chronologically in the order in which they were posted.

Therefore, the order of threads here is not ideal. Sorry about that.

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

This is a necessary evil when considering products that actually have a pharmacological effect. Are you familiar with the licensing procedure for medicinal products? There are systems in place that assess the risk-benefit ratio of any medicinal products that are to be licensed (administered by the FDA in the US and by the IMB here). Due to the limits of pre-marketing data, post-marketing data is monitored and when new evidence (from trials, adverse reaction reporting for healthcare professionals etc.) comes to light, the licensing authority may re-assess the risk-benefit ratio of the product, and if they deem it to be unfavourable, they will impose a variance on the licence of the medicine (perhaps limiting its use to only certain patient groups) or suspend or even withdraw the licence. This responsibility rests with the FDA/IMB etc., and so any (mis)information provided to prescribers will not effect the marketing status of the product.

We know now that where pharmaceutical companies had evidence that did not support the drug, they often suppress it. This is in the public domain.
The system is flawed.

Watch the video.

Kurtosis

boardswalker wrote: »

We know now that where pharmaceutical companies had evidence that did not support the drug, they often suppress it. This is in the public domain.
The system is flawed.

Watch the video.

How do you mean did not support the drug? Showed it lacked efficacy? Showed that it cause adverse effects (i.e. increased risk of cardiovascular events)?

Could you elaborate maybe on how you believe the system is flawed? I assume you know that clinical trials (specifically those carried out before a medicine is marketed) have to be registered with the Irish Medicines Board and there are time frames involved with notifying the IMB of adverse events that occur during the trial.

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

How do you mean did not support the drug? Showed it lacked efficacy? Showed that it cause adverse effects (i.e. increased risk of cardiovascular events)?

Could you elaborate maybe on how you believe the system is flawed?

I am surprised that you are not familiar with Vioxx and the background.
There is loads of information out there about it and all health professionals should be aware of what happened.
Vioxx doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

In 2004, Merck pulled painkiller Vioxx from the market. The drug was causing heart problems, strokes and deaths among patients in a large study that was under way at the time. Merck stopped the study early when those results became clear. Thousands of former Vioxx patients and their families are suing the company.

The FDA approved Vioxx in May 1999. Seven years later, more than 23,000 people were suing Merck, alleging the drug caused heart attacks and strokes. Documents discovered after the recall showed that five years earlier, in 1999, during another large Vioxx study, patients had similar heart problems.

During those five years Vioxx was on the market, millions of Americans took Vioxx. And a Food and Drug Administration scientist has estimated that some 38,000 people who took the drug died.

The Vioxx case is well documented.

On 1 March 2010, the Boston Globe reported

Last Vioxx payouts to be made soon

TRENTON, N.J. - Drug maker Merck & Co. has made its final, $4.1 billion payment into a fund to settle tens of thousands of US claims that withdrawn painkiller Vioxx caused heart attacks or strokes, the company said in a regulatory filing yesterday.

The final payouts to those patients or their survivors, from the $4.85 billion settlement fund, should be made by the end of June, according to the filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

About $4 billion of that was reserved for heart attack patients. Their claims have already been processed and either paid or denied.

“The stroke claims are still in progress, and final payments are expected to be made sometime in the second quarter of this year,’’ Ted Mayer, outside counsel for Merck, said in an interview.

He said nearly 18,000 claims involving strokes are in process, and about 7,400 of those resulted in initial payments. Mayer could not immediately say how many of the heart attack claimants received payments and how many were determined not to fit the eligibility rules for claims.

The SEC filing said Merck has finalized some other parts of the sprawling litigation begun after it yanked Vioxx from the market in September 2004 because it doubled the risk of heart attacks and strokes.

That triggered lawsuits from around the world, filed by Vioxx users or survivors alleging the Whitehouse Station, N.J., company downplayed the drug’s dangers, which Merck denies. Other suits were filed by shareholders who collectively lost billions of dollars and by insurance plans, unions, and individuals.

In November 2007, Merck reached a $4.85 billion settlement with plaintiffs’ lawyers to resolve most of the roughly 50,000 product liability suits alleging Vioxx harmed or killed users.

Kurtosis

boardswalker wrote: »

I am surprised that you are not familiar with Vioxx and the background.
There is loads of information out there about it and all health professionals should be aware of what happened.

Firstly, as I already mentioned, I am well aware of the ins and outs of Vioxx and its case, as well as a number of other cases of medicinal products being withdrawn from the market.

You have not addressed the questions I put to you. Information on what happened with Vioxx is readily available, so I asked you about your thoughts on the matter rather than posting information on the case.

penguin88 wrote: »

How do you mean did not support the drug? Showed it lacked efficacy? Showed that it cause adverse effects (i.e. increased risk of cardiovascular events)?

Could you elaborate maybe on how you believe the system is flawed? I assume you know that clinical trials (specifically those carried out before a medicine is marketed) have to be registered with the Irish Medicines Board and there are time frames involved with notifying the IMB of adverse events that occur during the trial.

You suggest that a flawed system is the reason for the Vioxx case. Are you talking about the broader system of scientific evidence or specifically the regulatory system that exists to license medicinal products?

boardswalker

SomeDose wrote: »

Actually, boardswalker, I think now would be a good time for you to declare:

1) Any relevant qualifications in Health / Science you may have (be it CAM, conventional or otherwise).
2) Whether or not you have any financial interest in or ties to the CAM industry.

I have an Honours Primary degree in an engineering discipine.
I have no financial interest or ties to the CAM industry.
I worked in a business support role for many years for one of the large pharmaceutical companies. I have seen at first hand the commercial pressures individuals in those organisations are subject to.

I have been a patient and am likely to be a patient again.
I would like to know that any treatment I am being prescribed is being done for my benefit and not for the benefit of the manufacturer.

I consider myself a stakeholder in the healthcare sector as I have been, and may be again, a consumer-patient of healthcare.

I am aware of debates taking place in the wider scientific community, although unfortunately not welcomed in this forum, about the role of the pharmaceutical industry in scientific research.

I would like to believe that the health care professionals, to whom I would entrust my health, would have a good understanding of the risks of prescribed medicines and would be able to make me aware of those risks.

I am concerned that many of the posters here, who hold themselves out as healthcare professionals, are not aware of the concerns and are very defensive and arrogant about patients genuine and well placed fears.

I have never used homeopathy. The nearest I came to it was when a colleague had a young baby, less than nine months old with eczema. The child was in terrible pain. The parents were totally stressed. Conventional medicine more or less gave up. Someone suggested homeopathy. They tried - they would have tried anything. After one week, the symptoms reduced after two weeks it was almost gone and as far as I know it has not recurred. I don't how how, why or even if it was the real cause of the cure. I only know that I would not deny them the right to try it. I am glad that they did and I am very happy that it worked for them. But that is as close to homeopathy as I have been.

I resent individuals from an industry with as many well documented failures as the pharmaceutical industry glossing over the very public failures of that industry.

But definitely no financial interest or ties to CAM.
I am open to think that they may work for reasons we cannot now understand but may understand in the future.

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

Firstly, as I already mentioned, I am well aware of the ins and outs of Vioxx and its case, as well as a number of other cases of medicinal products being withdrawn from the market.

You have not addressed the questions I put to you. Information on what happened with Vioxx is readily available, so I asked you about your thoughts on the matter rather than posting information on the case.

You suggest that a flawed system is the reason for the Vioxx case. Are you talking about the broader system of scientific evidence or specifically the regulatory system that exists to license medicinal products?

OK, as simply as I can put it.
Evidence showing an increased risk was known by the manufacturer but suppressed from the regulators.
Secondly, a senior FDA employee gave evidence, at a US Senate hearing on the drug recall,that the FDA ignored his warnings about the drug and tried to suppress the results of his investigations.
It is now widely accepted that most of the deaths that occurred would not have occurred had the early adverse results been published and acted upon.

Boardswalker, can you please explain how the two or three examples of horror stories (assuming they are as black and white as you're telling them, which I serious doubt) invalidate the entire process?

Further more how does it invalidate the entire process when the only reason you know that the drugs in question are harmful is because of the evidence produced and verified by the very same process?

And what exactly do you recommend to fix this system? Should we all just turn to unregulated quackery like homoeopathy?

Kurtosis

boardswalker wrote: »

OK, as simply as I can put it.
Evidence showing an increased risk was known by the manufacturer but suppressed from the regulators.
Secondly, a senior FDA employee gave evidence, at a US Senate hearing on the drug recall,that the FDA ignored his warnings about the drug and tried to suppress the results of his investigations.
It is now widely accepted that most of the deaths that occurred would not have occurred had the early adverse results been published and acted upon.

Ok, go for simple, I was actually looking for a bit of elaboration! Merck tried to put a positive spin on the results of their VIGOR trial, have you actually read the study? It states that myocardial infarction in the rofecoxib group (Vioxx) is 0.4% compared with 0.1% for the control group (who are on the established NSAID, naproxen), and that the number of deaths from cardiovascular event are not significantly different between the two groups. The authors try to justify this as a cadio-protective effect of naproxen. Would this not constitute publishing the early adverse reaction results?

Sigi

In response to the op I would like to point out the amount of cholesterol lowering medication on the market with no benefit whatsoever to the patient.The whole cholesterol myth is bullsh*t spread by the pharmaceutical companies themselves with simply the goal of profits and it has been shown that in people with high cholesterol those who go on statins for it have a higher mortality rate than those who don't.

ORLY?

Sigi wrote: »

In response to the op I would like to point out the amount of cholesterol lowering medication on the market with no benefit whatsoever to the patient.The whole cholesterol myth is bullsh*t spread by the pharmaceutical companies themselves with simply the goal of profits and it has been shown that in people with high cholesterol those who go on statins for it have a higher mortality rate than those who don't.

I assume that you are addressing me? I am not the original poster, my post only appears to be first because extra posts were sent here from another thread.

That's a bold claim. Care to back it up?

boardswalker

King Mob wrote: »

Boardswalker, can you please explain how the two or three examples of horror stories (assuming they are as black and white as you're telling them, which I serious doubt) invalidate the entire process?

Further more how does it invalidate the entire process when the only reason you know that the drugs in question are harmful is because of the evidence produced and verified by the very same process?

And what exactly do you recommend to fix this system? Should we all just turn to unregulated quackery like homoeopathy?

The Wall Street Journal has reported that company documents showed the pharmaceutical firm Merck knew for years about health issues related to its arthritis drug Vioxx. WSJ reported that internal company e-mail and documents showed Merck knew as early as 2000 of the health concerns surrounding Vioxx but tried to downplay criticism of the drug.

The drug was approved on May 20 1999 and recalled in 2004.
At the time of recall, it is estimated that 38,000 had died as a result of taking the drug.

(1) The process is designed to increase the safety of drug users. It didn't do that because evidence was suppressed.

( 2) The point is that earlier evidence was available. Many people died before the regulator finally acted on the growing evidence that the drug was dangerous. The evidence came from deaths - not a clinical trial. The clinical trials let us down.

(3) Many argue it was the licensing of Vioxx that was inadequately regulated.
The fact that the FDA have tightened the rules, belatedly, would indicate that the regulation was not adequate. There is a growing body of evidence that more needs to be done.

- we need to reduce the reliance on industry funded trials.
- we need to outlaw ghostwriting of supposedly academic articles by industry funded personnel and publishing them as written by independent academics.
- we need to ensure that conflicts of interest - where researchers receive large amounts of money from industry but don't disclose that when they are writing favourable reports on drugs. This is well documented.
- we need to reduce the influence of the drug industry on medical education - at both undergraduate and continuing professional education.
That would be a start.

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

Ok, go for simple, I was actually looking for a bit of elaboration! Merck tried to put a positive spin on the results of their VIGOR trial, have you actually read the study? It states that myocardial infarction in the rofecoxib group (Vioxx) is 0.4% compared with 0.1% for the control group (who are on the established NSAID, naproxen), and that the number of deaths from cardiovascular event are not significantly different between the two groups. The authors try to justify this as a cadio-protective effect of naproxen. Would this not constitute publishing the early adverse reaction results?

There was evidence long before the Vigor study that the drugs had harmful effects. It is now known that this early evidence was suppressed.

It took 5 years before the drug was withdrawn - and an estimated 38,000 deaths.

It is documented that the FDA had serious reservations about the drug but these were not acted upon.

Are you saying you are happy with the delays in publishing the adverse affects?


PS.
Everywhere else in the world, the Vioxx affair is seen as a disaster.
it is only on this forum that people argue that it shows the system works.
Does science on boards work differently to science everywhere else?

boardswalker

From the Guardian Thursday 27 January 2005 12.21 GMT

How do we stop the Vioxx disaster happening again?

This question is exercising the minds of drug companies and scientists alike. A report in this week's Lancet estimates there are 140,000 people with serious heart disease in the US caused by use of the painkiller Vioxx.

The arthritis drug was withdrawn in September after evidence emerged that it could cause heart problems. Drug safety expert David Graham and colleagues at the Centre for Drug Evaluation and Research found those taking Vioxx had a 34% higher chance of coronary heart disease than those on other painkillers.

British experts say up to half a million people in the UK may be affected.

"Signals of the problem were noted between 1999-2001, but nothing was done," says David Webb, professor of clinical pharmacology at Edinburgh University, "The companies involved should have taken some action to prevent this disaster."

Dr Graham agrees. "The US regulatory authority hasn't acted on behalf of public health, but corporate interests. It was aware of the scale of the problem in June 2000 but waited two years to do something. If the regulatory bodies remain the way they are, the same disaster will reoccur."

Drug industry expert and critic Charles Medawar believes the entire control system needs reviewing. "We need a thorough inquiry not only into this problem, but into the regulatory system that allowed it to happen."

The UK Medicines & Health Care Products Regulatory Agency defends the system, of which it is part, saying: "No matter how extensive the clinical trials in patients, certain adverse effects may not be detected until a very large number of people have received the medicine."

The agency is investigating the safety of similar painkillers and advises patients to contact their doctor. "This is one of the worst health disasters in the world, and it demonstrates the way drug safety is assessed. Pre-marketing assessment is inadequate to ensure safety," says Dr Graham.

"There should be a new, patient-centred [system], one that focuses drug control on the way in which drugs are actually used, and on the safety of people who use them," says Medawar.

boardswalker

boardswalker wrote: »

The Wall Street Journal has reported that company documents showed the pharmaceutical firm Merck knew for years about health issues related to its arthritis drug Vioxx. WSJ reported that internal company e-mail and documents showed Merck knew as early as 2000 of the health concerns surrounding Vioxx but tried to downplay criticism of the drug.

The drug was approved on May 20 1999 and recalled in 2004.
At the time of recall, it is estimated that 38,000 had died as a result of taking the drug.

(1) The process is designed to increase the safety of drug users. It didn't do that because evidence was suppressed.

( 2) The point is that earlier evidence was available. Many people died before the regulator finally acted on the growing evidence that the drug was dangerous. The evidence came from deaths - not a clinical trial. The clinical trials let us down.

(3) Many argue it was the licensing of Vioxx that was inadequately regulated.
The fact that the FDA have tightened the rules, belatedly, would indicate that the regulation was not adequate. There is a growing body of evidence that more needs to be done.

- we need to reduce the reliance on industry funded trials.
- we need to outlaw ghostwriting of supposedly academic articles by industry funded personnel and publishing them as written by independent academics.
- we need to ensure that conflicts of interest - where researchers receive large amounts of money from industry but don't disclose that when they are writing favourable reports on drugs. This is well documented.
- we need to reduce the influence of the drug industry on medical education - at both undergraduate and continuing professional education.
That would be a start.

So therefore all scientific research is invalid until these changes are introduced?
That was what you were arguing remember.

And you do realise that peer review of research weeds out most of the things you think invalidates it.

And again you fail completely to address the fact that the reason you know that this drug was harmful was due to this exact process you think is unreliable.

Kurtosis

boardswalker wrote: »

There was evidence long before the Vigor study that the drugs had harmful effects. It is now known that this early evidence was suppressed.

Before the VIGOR study that came out in 2000, a bit over a year after the drug came to market? That would suggest that the company probably concealed information about the drug from pre-marketing clinical trials...don't think I've come across that one before.

Are you saying you are happy with the delays in publishing the adverse affects?

No of course not.

PS.
Everywhere else in the world, the Vioxx affair is seen as a disaster.
it is only on this forum that people argue that it shows the system works.
Does science on boards work differently to science everywhere else?

I don't know if you think being condescending helps you make your point, it's not really appreciated. I certainly have not claimed that it shows the system works and I do not think any other posters would suggest it either.

The regulatory system is not perfect, it can only work towards an ideal. To be frank, you seem to be picking out bits and pieces to suit your own agenda and omitting other aspects of the current system, for example pharmacovigilance.

Kurtosis

boardswalker wrote: »

(3) Many argue it was the licensing of Vioxx that was inadequately regulated.
The fact that the FDA have tightened the rules, belatedly, would indicate that the regulation was not adequate. There is a growing body of evidence that more needs to be done.

Could the conclusion not also be drawn that its licensing was regulated appropriately based on the evidence available at the time. It's pretty well established that when new evidence comes to light, the licensing authority can impose restrictions based on that new information. The FDA or IMB aren't psychic.

- we need to reduce the reliance on industry funded trials.

This is brilliant as an ideal, but how would it actually work in reality? Who pays for the trials to assess a pharma companies drugs? Clinical trials are an extremely costly thing to run, no one is going to want to foot such a bill.

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

Before the VIGOR study that came out in 2000, a bit over a year after the drug came to market? That would suggest that the company probably concealed information about the drug from pre-marketing clinical trials...don't think I've come across that one before.

Dr. Eric Topol, chief of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, was Merck's first and most persistent critic. In 2001, he conducted a statistical analysis of all the available data about Vioxx. His study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

What did his study — which came out after the VIGOR study — find?

"That study, which looked at all the data available for both the medicines of these COX-2 inhibitors and all other medicines, including aspirin, that were available, showed a very substantial worrying risk of heart attacks and strokes — across the board — from the VIGOR trial and about Vioxx," says Topol.

Topol examined data from a 1998 Merck clinical trial called Study "090", which was never published. Among 978 patients studied, serious cardiovascular events, including heart attack and stroke — were found about six times more often in patients taking Vioxx than in patients taking another arthritis drug or a placebo.

Topol notes that not only was Study 090 never published and available solely through a subsequent FDA memorandum, but the data presented in the VIGOR article also suffered from errors of omission, along with erroneous information and lack of completeness.

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

Could the conclusion not also be drawn that its licensing was regulated appropriately based on the evidence available at the time. It's pretty well established that when new evidence comes to light, the licensing authority can impose restrictions based on that new information. The FDA or IMB aren't psychic.

I think you are ignoring the point that key evidence was available but not published.

Sigi

ORLY? wrote: »

I assume that you are addressing me? I am not the original poster, my post only appears to be first because extra posts were sent here from another thread.

That's a bold claim. Care to back it up?

I'm not sure where I had the study but I'll find it.I promise you however the whole concept of cholesterol being behind heart disease or any ill effects is complete and utter bull****.

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

Before the VIGOR study that came out in 2000, a bit over a year after the drug came to market? That would suggest that the company probably concealed information about the drug from pre-marketing clinical trials...don't think I've come across that one before.

There does appear to be gaps in your knowledge of this particular case.

Here's a good summary of the information that came to light in one of the first Vioxx trials. This information has been in the public domain for several years now. In 2007 Merck agreed to pay $4.85 billion to settle thousands of cases brought by people who suffered heart attacks and strokes after taking its Vioxx painkiller

"The facts presented during the Vioxx trial showed that Merck distributed and promoted Vioxx without properly disclosing the dangers of the drug. The following summarizes some of the key facts of the case.

Early scientific studies indicated that Vioxx increased heart risks

Internal Merck documents indicated that the company was aware of the problems with Vioxx as early as 1997. In fact, the company's top scientist stated in March of 2000 that a clinical trial of Vioxx confirmed that the drug had heart risks. Despite their knowledge of these problems, Merck aggressively marketed the drug.

* "Mr. Lanier [the plaintiffs attorney] offered jurors a trove of company documents and e-mail messages that revealed how Merck researched Vioxx's heart risks and presented what it knew to doctors and consumers. The documents showed that scientists at Merck were worried about Vioxx's potential cardiovascular risks as early as 1997, two years before Merck began selling the drug. 'The possibility of increased C.V. events is of great concern,' Dr. Alise Reicin, a Merck scientist, wrote in a 1997 e-mail message; 'C.V. events' is scientific shorthand for cardiovascular problems like strokes or heart attacks. 'I just can't wait to be the one to present those results to senior management,' Dr. Reicin's message continued. The documents also revealed that Dr. Edward M. Scolnick, who at the time was Merck's top scientist, said in March 2000 that the largest clinical trial ever conducted of Vioxx confirmed that Vioxx had heart risks, as he had feared." [The New York Times, 8/21/05]
* "Dr. Jerry Avorn, a professor at Harvard Medical School and frequent critic of the drug industry, said he was not surprised that the jury responded as vehemently as it did. 'Even as a seasoned observer of drug company affairs, I have been surprised at the way Merck handled the emerging evidence about cardiac risk with this drug,' Dr. Avorn said. 'There was an element of the Watergate tapes that I was reminded of: many people had been critical of Nixon for a long time, but even Nixon's critics did not expect to find the documentation of their worst fears made so clearly evident.'" [The New York Times, 8/21/05]
* "With the help of Dr. David Egilman, another of his expert witnesses, Mr. Lanier also clarified the chronology of Merck's evolving knowledge of Vioxx and its risks. By presenting company documents and e-mail messages among top Merck scientists, Mr. Lanier has shown that Merck was concerned about Vioxx's possible heart risks even before a 2000 clinical trial -- called Vigor -- showed Vioxx caused five times as many heart attacks as naproxen, an older painkiller." [The New York Times, 8/6/05]

Despite problems, Merck appeared to have rushed approval for Vioxx

Even though Merck was aware of the problems with Vioxx, the company tried to rush federal approval of the drug. Documents presented during the trial seem to indicate that the company was more concerned about competition from rival drug makers than they were with health and safety of consumers.

* "On Friday, for example, Mr. Lanier staged a withering examination of Dr. Alan S. Nies, a retired Merck scientist who led the Vioxx development program in the 1990's. The lawyer presented documents that appeared to show that Merck tried to rush federal approval for Vioxx because it feared that Celebrex, a competing drug by Pfizer, would get approval first." [The New York Times, 8/6/05]
* "Before Lanier began drilling Nies, he told Merck lawyer Joseph Piorkowski that there was no race to get Vioxx on the market before Celebrex. Nies, who retired from Merck in 2002 three years after Vioxx went on the market, also told Piorkowski it was 'absolutely false' that Merck minimized safety to rush Vioxx to consumers. However, Nies' 1996 plan identified the Celebrex market goal of late 1998 and set the same goal for Vioxx. The document also noted an 'accelerated and compressed' drug development strategy, or beginning some studies before others were finished. 'That's called efficiency,' Nies said. 'It's called recklessness,' Lanier countered. 'It's not reckless,' Nies said." [Associated Press, 8/5/05]

Merck's aggressive marketing practices were highly misleading

In a misleading 2001 letter to doctors, the company clearly understated the risks that patents would be exposed to by using Vioxx. Merck even produced a game called "dodgeball" to teach pharmaceutical representatives how to avoid answering tough questions about their new blockbuster drug.

* "In a 2001 letter to doctors, Merck seriously understated the heart risks faced by patients taking its painkiller Vioxx, according to evidence presented Tuesday in the first Vioxx lawsuit to reach trial. In the letter, Merck reported that patients taking Vioxx in the largest clinical trial of the drug ever, only 0.5 percent had incurred 'cardiovascular events,' or heart and circulation problems. That would mean only about 20 patients among the more than 4,000 who took Vioxx during the study. But in fact, 14.6 percent of the Vioxx patients -- or 590 people -- had cardiovascular troubles while taking the drug, according to Merck's own report on the study to federal regulators. And 2.5 percent, or 101 people, had serious problems, like heart attacks. Merck sent the letter to thousands of doctors, including in April 2001 to Dr. Brent Wallace, who had prescribed Vioxx to Robert Ernst. Mr. Ernst, who was 59, died suddenly in May 2001 after taking Vioxx for eight months, and his family is suing Merck, claiming the drug caused his death. . The gap between Merck's internal analysis of the study and its letter to physicians may undercut a crucial aspect of the company's defense: that Merck fully disclosed Vioxx's potential heart risks to doctors and patients during the five years the drug was on the market." [The New York Times, 7/20/05]
* "Mr. Lanier also introduced a marketing videotape that showed Merck sales representatives being trained to view doctors' concerns about Vioxx's heart risks as 'obstacles' to be avoided or dismissed. Another marketing document taught representatives to play 'Dodgeball' when doctors voiced concerns." [The New York Times, 8/21/05]
* "Merck told its sales representatives that its painkiller Vioxx did not increase the risk of heart attacks, according to a Merck training video played on Wednesday for jurors in the first Vioxx lawsuit to reach trial. The video, which had never before been publicly shown, also depicts actors playing Merck representatives avoiding a question about Vioxx's potential to increase blood pressure -- a documented side effect. While the training tape was never shown to doctors or consumers, its existence may further undercut Merck's claim that the company properly disclosed Vioxx's risks during the five years the drug was on the market. In the video, an actress playing 'an obstacle' to Vioxx sales says, 'I'm afraid Vioxx causes M.I.'s' -- a reference to myocardial infarctions, or heart attacks. In response, an actress playing a Merck sales representative says, 'That's not true.' . Merck made the videotape in 2000, as it struggled to increase Vioxx sales despite concerns by doctors and independent scientists that the drug might damage the heart." [The New York Times, 7/21/05]

Merck worked to discredit those doctors not prescribing Vioxx

Doctors who weren't fooled by Merck's deceptive marketing of Vioxx were targeted by the company. Merck worked to discredit these doctors and even threatened Stanford University scientists who questioned the drug.

* "He [Mr. Lanier] also questioned internal Merck documents that said the Vioxx sales staff was to 'neutralize' or 'discredit' doctors who refused to back prescribing Vioxx." [The Houston Chronicle, 7/20/05]
* "Houston litigator Mark Lanier questioned Nancy Santanello, head of Merck's epidemiology department, about an internal list of 36 doctors identified as 'physicians to neutralize' in an e-mail circulated two months after the popular painkiller went on the market in 1999. 'Attached is the complete list of 36 physicians to neutralize with background information and recommended tactics. You will notice that some have already been 'neutralized,'' the e-mail said. It also said a previous e-mail had a subset of the 36 physicians 'we would like to get involved in Merck clinical research' and that the e-mail's recipient should 'be aware of our most challenging (and also most vocal) national and regional physicians.' Santanello said the term 'neutralize' was a marketing strategy to educate doctors about Vioxx." [Associated Press, 7/19/05]
* "Lanier also showed a January 2001 letter from Stanford Medical School professor Dr. James Fries to former Merck CEO Ray Gilmartin complaining that Merck researcher Louis Sherwood had called him to try to get him to make another professor stop saying negative things about Vioxx in lectures. Sherwood warned that if the professor didn't stop bashing Vioxx, he would 'flame out' and 'there would be consequences for myself and Stanford,' Fries wrote." [The Houston Chronicle, 7/19/05]
* "Lanier also presented documents showing that Vioxx sales staff members at one time earned a $2,000 bonus if one of the doctors they called on prescribed Vioxx more than 55 percent of the time and another $2,000 if that rate exceeded 61 percent." [The Houston Chronicle, 7/20/05]"

boardswalker

penguin88 wrote: »

Clinical trials are an extremely costly thing to run, no one is going to want to foot such a bill.

The consumer is paying for all clinical trials in the long run.
All research, development, production, marketing and general admin costs are paid from the revenue generated from the consumer.

The issue is how the money is spent. Do you want the pharmaceutical company to control spending even though we know that they don't like to run tests that are likely to give unfavourable results and we also know that when there were unfavourable results there has been a history of suppressing those unfavourable results. Or do you want it to be spent in ways that ensure the full truth comes out.

tallaght01

Jesus christ, you'd get a pain in the balls reading all that.

Most people who A) care for their patients b) understand science and c) have an open mind know that:

The number one aim of the drug companies is to make money. They have, and will in the future, cover up bad results, and people will come to harm from it.

This is a result of sheer criminal dishonesty, and science relies on a degree of integrity.

This does not make science flawed. It means studies will occasionally be published by knackers. Unfortunately, that's the way of the world, and no amount of peer review solves that.

The vast majority of studies are sound, in terms of being what they're supposed to be, and in being performed in good faith.

The above doesn't change the fact that homeopathy is bollocks.

Homeopathy is a placebo effect, and if it brings comfort to some, then let them believe what they like.

The real militant alternative medicine side are characterised by walls of texts and by rehashing the opinions of the minority (ALWAYS "an eminent scientist").

They will invariably try to move the goalposts by debating the failings of conventional medicine (of which there are many), rather than the abject failure of the homeopathy community to use the billions they earn to produce some evidence of effect.

Anyone who argues with them in any kind of rational way is wasting useful energy that would be far better utilised having an oul <mod snip>.

Just walk away, boys. Just walk away.

Edit: And you can be sure as hell that they never read any of the trials they link, let alone understand them.

Dr Galen

Sigi wrote: »

I'm not sure where I had the study but I'll find it.I promise you however the whole concept of cholesterol being behind heart disease or any ill effects is complete and utter bull****.

Am I reading this right??

locum-motion

Sigi wrote: »

I'm not sure where I had the study but I'll find it.

Quickly, please!

Sigi wrote: »

I promise you however the whole concept of cholesterol being behind heart disease or any ill effects is complete and utter bull****.

"I promise you" is not sufficient evidence to convince most of the posters on this forum that you're right and they're wrong. Post links to studies that back up your assertions, and be prepared to argue their merits.

boardswalker

tallaght01 wrote: »

This does not make science flawed. It means studies will occasionally be published by knackers. Unfortunately, that's the way of the world, and no amount of peer review solves that.

The vast majority of studies are sound, in terms of being what they're supposed to be, and in being performed in good faith.

The above doesn't change the fact that homeopathy is bollocks.

Homeopathy is a placebo effect, and if it brings comfort to some, then let them believe what they like.

The real militant alternative medicine side are characterised by walls of texts and by rehashing the opinions of the minority (ALWAYS "an eminent scientist").

They will invariably try to move the goalposts by debating the failings of conventional medicine (of which there are many), rather than the abject failure of the homeopathy community to use the billions they earn to produce some evidence of effect.

Anyone who argues with them in any kind of rational way is wasting useful energy that would be far better utilised having an oul <mod snip>.

Just walk away, boys. Just walk away.

Edit: And you can be sure as hell that they never read any of the trials they link, let alone understand them.

Firstly, this thread is not about homeopathy - it is about the politics of science. Read the title.

Secondly, my original post referenced a video of a talk given by a named eminent scientist to an audience of scientists highlighting how scientific research - in many areas - is being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry to the detriment of true science. Have you taken the time to watch the video? This is an area that is being widely discussed around the world but not here apparently.

Thanks for the "oul <mod snip>" comment. Shows me just how scientific you are.

I, and many more healthcare users, understand far more than you would like me to.

But you're right. Walk away, admit defeat, walk away.

Dr Galen

boardswalker wrote: »

Firstly, this thread is not about homeopathy - it is about the politics of science. Read the title.

Secondly, my original post referenced a video of a talk given by a named eminent scientist to an audience of scientists highlighting how scientific research - in many areas - is being influenced by the pharmaceutical industry to the detriment of true science. Have you taken the time to watch the video? This is an area that is being widely discussed around the world but not here apparently.

Thanks for the "oul <mod snip>" comment. Shows me just how scientific you are.

I, and many more healthcare users, understand far more than you would like me to.

But you're right. Walk away, admit defeat, walk away.

What the hell are you talking about? I'm so lost in your rhetoric that I don't see your point anymore

Ok

Correct me if I'm wrong here :

You think the present peer review system is totally and utterly flawed?
You think that pharma companies have undue influence on the use of drugs and treatments?
You say that those of us working in the Health Service are all in hock to said pharma industry and do what they money tells us to do?
So far, you have not suggested a fix to the broken system.

These are honest points here, I'm not trying to trip you up. A simple yes or no will suffice, or you can elaborate as you see fit. I think you'll be surprised at how close we all are on this. A certain amount of blinker removal will be needed though.

boardswalker

Dr Galen wrote: »

What the hell are you talking about? I'm so lost in your rhetoric that I don't see your point anymore

Ok

Correct me if I'm wrong here :

You think the present peer review system is totally and utterly flawed?
You think that pharma companies have undue influence on the use of drugs and treatments?
You say that those of us working in the Health Service are all in hock to said pharma industry and do what they money tells us to do?
So far, you have not suggested a fix to the broken system.

These are honest points here, I'm not trying to trip you up. A simple yes or no will suffice, or you can elaborate as you see fit. I think you'll be surprised at how close we all are on this. A certain amount of blinker removal will be needed though.

Have you watched the video clip I referenced? Dr Beatrice Golomb makes the case very well.

Are you aware that this is being discussed around the world as an area of concern?

I have done as much as I can here. "You can bring a horse to water, but you can't make him drink".

Watch the video and then discuss the issues raised, please.