Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:18 PM Oct 2015

Scientific American: Many Antidepressant Studies Found Tainted by Pharma Company Influence

A review of studies that assess clinical antidepressants shows hidden conflicts of interest and financial ties to corporate drugmakers

Scientific American | Roni Jacobson | October 21, 2015

After many lawsuits and a 2012 U.S. Department of Justice settlement, last month an independent review found that antidepressant drug Paxil (paroxetine) is not safe for teenagers. The finding contradicts the conclusions of the initial 2001 drug trial, which the manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline had funded, then used its results to market Paxil as safe for adolescents.



The original trial, known as Study 329, is but one high-profile example of pharmaceutical industry influence known to pervade scientific research, including clinical trials the U.S. Food and Drug Administration requires pharma companies to fund in order to assess their products. For that reason, people who read scientific papers as part of their jobs have come to rely on meta-analyses, supposedly thorough reviews summarizing the evidence from multiple trials, rather than trust individual studies. But a new analysis casts doubt on that practice as well, finding that the vast majority of meta-analyses of antidepressants have some industry link, with a corresponding suppression of negative results.

The latest study, published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, which evaluated 185 meta-analyses, found that one third of them were written by pharma industry employees. “We knew that the industry would fund studies to promote its products, but it’s very different to fund meta-analyses,” which “have traditionally been a bulwark of evidence-based medicine,” says John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Stanford University School of Medicine and co-author of the study. “It’s really amazing that there is such a massive influx of influence in this field.”

Almost 80 percent of meta-analyses in the review had some sort of industry tie, either through sponsorship, which the authors defined as direct industry funding of the study, or conflicts of interest, defined as any situation in which one or more authors were either industry employees or independent researchers receiving any type of industry support (including speaking fees and research grants). Especially troubling, the study showed about 7 percent of researchers had undisclosed conflicts of interest. “There’s a certain pecking order of papers,” says Erick Turner, a professor of psychiatry at Oregon Health & Science University who was not associated with the research. “Meta-analyses are at the top of the evidence pyramid.” Turner was “very concerned” by the results but did not find them surprising. “Industry influence is just massive. What’s really new is the level of attention people are now paying to it.” SNIP

MORE: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-antidepressant-studies-found-tainted-by-pharma-company-influence/

When they can't fudge the studies, they use bribes

Big Pharma's Pathetic Medical Bribes are Quite Profitable

Pharmaceutical companies are low-balling how much they pay doctors by misspelling the names of their drugs in their reports to the federal government.
http://www.alternet.org/drugs/big-pharma-simple-trick-obscuring-medical-bribes

Search "pharmaceutical + bribes"
https://www.google.com/search?q=pharmaceutical+bribes
About 281,000 results

Is there NO ONE that can stop this insanity?
16 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Scientific American: Many Antidepressant Studies Found Tainted by Pharma Company Influence (Original Post) nationalize the fed Oct 2015 OP
Is there NO ONE that can stop this insanity? DJ13 Oct 2015 #1
To your last question... Marie Marie Oct 2015 #2
+325 million nt nationalize the fed Oct 2015 #9
10/21: "why do you hate science!" 10/22: "science is vindicated! it can out corruption even over MisterP Oct 2015 #3
NIH has been cut so much greymattermom Oct 2015 #4
spend some time watching drug commercials demigoddess Oct 2015 #5
+ a lot nationalize the fed Oct 2015 #11
But but but SCIENCE! truebluegreen Oct 2015 #6
GMO has literally infested our entire food supply nationalize the fed Oct 2015 #13
+a zillion truebluegreen Oct 2015 #15
it's no wonder that so many refuse to believe "experts" any more and refuse bbgrunt Oct 2015 #7
it's a very interesting case--since the purchased scientists (who also say you're not allowed to MisterP Oct 2015 #10
+1 NIH and other instituitions that were highly regarded have been corrupted. It's awful. appalachiablue Oct 2015 #12
^ nationalize the fed Oct 2015 #8
The thing about tin-foil hats is.... they often reflect the light. WinkyDink Oct 2015 #14
Why do you hate doctors? Jesus Malverde Oct 2015 #16

Marie Marie

(9,999 posts)
2. To your last question...
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:27 PM
Oct 2015

apparently not. They are completely out of control and I don't see anything coming along to change that. They have us by the throat because we do need some of their products and they know that. We desperately need new antibiotics but -pffft- not enough profit in that. So they keep coming out with poison (all the better if it is addictive) and convincing us that we need this poison. They own the politicians and the FDA. Insanity indeed!

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
3. 10/21: "why do you hate science!" 10/22: "science is vindicated! it can out corruption even over
Thu Oct 22, 2015, 11:39 PM
Oct 2015

the sound of money!"

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
13. GMO has literally infested our entire food supply
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 09:27 PM
Oct 2015

anything with sugar that is not cane sugar is most likely GMO. Corn syrup? GMO- it's in EVERYTHING. Soybean oil? No problem! It's been "tested" by industry shills.



One day a headline will read:

Scientific American: Many Antidepressant GMO Studies Found Tainted by Pharma BIG AGRO Company Influence

And those that bashed and ridiculed GMO skeptics will be as quiet as mice in church. People that can't learn from the past are a detriment to society.



We can all expect promises to be broken, because we don't just tolerate it- we reward it. Disgusting.

bbgrunt

(5,281 posts)
7. it's no wonder that so many refuse to believe "experts" any more and refuse
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 12:53 AM
Oct 2015

to vaccinate their children or deride climate change. When science can be bought like everything else we all lose.

MisterP

(23,730 posts)
10. it's a very interesting case--since the purchased scientists (who also say you're not allowed to
Sat Oct 24, 2015, 08:33 PM
Oct 2015

disagree with them) ARE the ones causing the warming skepticism: that's also why "movement skepticism" is so open to AGW deniers and "race realists"

there was a lot of giggling when Neil Tyson warned us about corporate science and got all dewy-eyed over Clair Patterson: a 1991 Tyson would've sounded a bit more Kehoe (for all his Sagan-derived hippieness)

even the MJ article on this drew Kevin Folta and his "we're SO not shills like those people: Good ScienceTM always wins!" flacks

nationalize the fed

(2,169 posts)
8. ^
Fri Oct 23, 2015, 06:44 PM
Oct 2015

Seems to be a lack of interest from those who worship the new religion of Science. Ignoring things doesn't make them go away.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Scientific American: Many...