Announcements
Visit the Cholesterol Management 101 blog.
New US Diet Guidelines: What Not to Eat
Instead of just giving Americans a list of healthy food choices, the federal government takes a stab at showing us what not to eat. Get the facts here.
New US Diet Guidelines: What Not to Eat
Instead of just giving Americans a list of healthy food choices, the federal government takes a stab at showing us what not to eat. Get the facts here.
How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive Results
bobby75703 posted:
Fresh article discussing how Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive Results:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results
31 Replies |Watch This Discussion | Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsFresh article discussing how Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive Results:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results">http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=trial-sans-error-how-pharma-funded-research-cherry-picks-positive-results</a>
iride6606 responded:
Goldacre is not take too seriously here, but he tries hard. Pretty typical rhetoric for a self proclaimed apatheist. I have read his work but I find little I agree with, good for a laugh or two. We're talking about a guy that acquired a Certified Membership to the AANC in the name of a dead cat. He's kind of a goof, taken more seriously at home in the UK. Don't forget his other "great" work, The Atheist's Guide To Christmas. He's kind of all over the place.
A worthy article, but most of his points are not backed up by science but by his personal opinion. Again, I find little in his work to agree with but he certainly has passion for his work.
A worthy article, but most of his points are not backed up by science but by his personal opinion. Again, I find little in his work to agree with but he certainly has passion for his work.
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsGoldacre is not take too seriously here, but he tries hard. Pretty typical rhetoric for a self proclaimed apatheist. I have read his work but I find little I agree with, good for a laugh or two. We're talking about a guy that acquired a Certified Membership to the AANC in the name of a dead cat. He's kind of a goof, taken more seriously at home in the UK. Don't forget his other "great" work, The Atheist's Guide To Christmas. He's kind of all over the place.<br /> <br />A worthy article, but most of his points are not backed up by science but by his personal opinion. Again, I find little in his work to agree with but he certainly has passion for his work.
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Big Pharma is not to be taken too seroiusly here either.
If we want to play the discredit game, I could bring up some very serious violations by Big Pharma which were prosecuted by the Justice Dept. resulting in record fines.
But fines are not enough. In my opinion Its time for key players to do prison time.
If we want to play the discredit game, I could bring up some very serious violations by Big Pharma which were prosecuted by the Justice Dept. resulting in record fines.
But fines are not enough. In my opinion Its time for key players to do prison time.
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsBig Pharma is not to be taken too seroiusly here either. <br /><br />If we want to play the discredit game, I could bring up some very serious violations by Big Pharma which were prosecuted by the Justice Dept. resulting in record fines.<br /><br />But fines are not enough. In my opinion Its time for key players to do prison time.
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Sorry, there are fines in every industry and you've paraded them out here time and time again, old news. I think what you have here is an author who has everything to gain by writing a book or an article that preys on the vulnerable and allows him to earn a living. Again, you speak in circles. It's wrong for the drug companies to market themselves to make a profit but it's OK for an obscure author from the UK to market his ideas to make a profit. Do you really think he has a more sincere concern for the public? I think he's more concerned about his bank account. He calls himself an apatheist, that says it all.
No, you're covering old ground and talking in circles again. I can disagree with him, it's OK.
No, you're covering old ground and talking in circles again. I can disagree with him, it's OK.
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsSorry, there are fines in every industry and you've paraded them out here time and time again, old news. I think what you have here is an author who has everything to gain by writing a book or an article that preys on the vulnerable and allows him to earn a living. Again, you speak in circles. It's wrong for the drug companies to market themselves to make a profit but it's OK for an obscure author from the UK to market his ideas to make a profit. Do you really think he has a more sincere concern for the public? I think he's more concerned about his bank account. He calls himself an apatheist, that says it all.<br /> <br />No, you're covering old ground and talking in circles again. I can disagree with him, it's OK.
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
You can disagree with him, but I think he is 100% correct.
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsYou can disagree with him, but I think he is 100% correct.
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
It would be easier to believe him if he could offer any proof and he wasn't so................. goofy.
So, what does the medical establishment in the UK think of him;
It has been a lamentable feature of Ben Goldacre's contribution to the public discussion of science in the UK that he has everywhere generated an atmosphere of intolerance in support of his views, and rather than raise the tone of the debate it has encouraged a new kind of scientific infantilism, in which you deride your opponents and defer to authority.
And this;
A recent development in Ben Goldacre's career has been the projection of himself as an arbiter of research ethics. It remains hard to judge the sincerity of his position. Goldacre's angry denunciation is an essence no better than a public relations agenda (on behalf of whom?), and can only prejudice the science.
Ouch. You can read the rest, including the part about not disclosing relationships that influence his writings including the use of undisclosed proprietary information that was leaked to him by these "relationships"; I know how important honesty and disclosure are to you.
As I said, I have read his work and I'm not impressed.
http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/whats-behind-ben-goldacre-.html
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive Results<br /> <br />It would be easier to believe him if he could offer any proof and he wasn't so................. goofy.<br /> <br />So, what does the medical establishment in the UK think of him; <br /> <br /><i><b>It has been a lamentable feature of Ben Goldacre's contribution to the public discussion of science in the UK that he has everywhere generated an atmosphere of intolerance in support of his views, and rather than raise the tone of the debate it has encouraged a new kind of scientific infantilism, in which you deride your opponents and defer to authority.</b></i><i><b></b></i><br /> <br />And this;<br /> <br /><b><i></i></b><b><i>A recent development in Ben Goldacre's career has been the projection of himself as an arbiter of research ethics. It remains hard to judge the sincerity of his position. Goldacre's angry denunciation is an essence no better than a public relations agenda (on behalf of whom?), and can only prejudice the science. </i></b><b><i></i></b><br /> <br /><i> </i>Ouch. You can read the rest, including the part about not disclosing relationships that influence his writings including the use of undisclosed proprietary information that was leaked to him by these "relationships"; I know how important honesty and disclosure are to you.<br />As I said, I have read his work and I'm not impressed.<br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/whats-behind-ben-goldacre-.html">http://www.ageofautism.com/2010/08/whats-behind-ben-goldacre-.html</a> <br /> <br />
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
So what does the American public think about today's Pharmaceutical industry? ... To put it nicely, today's Big pharma has a pretty bad reputation.
And there is a very good reason why today's big pharma has this negative reputation. They earned it!
And there is a very good reason why today's big pharma has this negative reputation. They earned it!
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsSo what does the American public think about today's Pharmaceutical industry? ... To put it nicely, today's Big pharma has a pretty bad reputation. <br /><br />And there is a very good reason why today's big pharma has this negative reputation. They earned it!
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
I don't think that's true at all. I'm sure there are some that feel that way, but it's not an overall representation.
Goldacre on the other hand has earned his reputation and what I can't understand is why you would hitch your wagon to some one that is the embodiment of everything you speak out against. If a researcher wrote an article supporting drug trials you would accuse him of being everything Goldacre is.Your response to the facts is to point a finger at the drug companies. Why not defend the person you quote instead?
I have to wonder, did you read the entire 10 pages of his article or the book it was an excerpt from? I have and I researched the author as I do anything I read.
Look at this guy's reputation. He is a media bully and has been accused of taking confidential information that was entrusted to his father, a Professor at Oxford, and used it in his column to make it look like he had some kind of insight. More opinion of the scientific community;
Journalist Jim Edwards blogging on the CBS network Bnet issued a warning to Dr Ben Goldacre to respond to the claims that he [Goldacre> had failed to disclose that his father Michael J. Goldacre is a researcher responsible for the publication of medical papers claiming a lack of a causal association between vaccines and autistic conditions in children.
Goldacre is notorious for his defence of the MMR vaccine against claims it causes autism and for his public attacks as a national newspaper column writer on those he does not agree with.
Edwards' warning should be the least of Ben Goldacre's concerns. Goldacre encourages a "posse" on his Badscience.net blog including some notorious nutters and bullies who roam the internet ridiculing, abusing and bullying those whom Goldacre and his acolytes choose not to agree with. Targets include parents of vaccine damaged children and those concerned for the health and safety of children threatened by serious adverse vaccine reactions.
Why would you support such an individual?
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/nutters-and-journalists-who-support-ben-goldacre/
Goldacre on the other hand has earned his reputation and what I can't understand is why you would hitch your wagon to some one that is the embodiment of everything you speak out against. If a researcher wrote an article supporting drug trials you would accuse him of being everything Goldacre is.Your response to the facts is to point a finger at the drug companies. Why not defend the person you quote instead?
I have to wonder, did you read the entire 10 pages of his article or the book it was an excerpt from? I have and I researched the author as I do anything I read.
Look at this guy's reputation. He is a media bully and has been accused of taking confidential information that was entrusted to his father, a Professor at Oxford, and used it in his column to make it look like he had some kind of insight. More opinion of the scientific community;
Journalist Jim Edwards blogging on the CBS network Bnet issued a warning to Dr Ben Goldacre to respond to the claims that he [Goldacre> had failed to disclose that his father Michael J. Goldacre is a researcher responsible for the publication of medical papers claiming a lack of a causal association between vaccines and autistic conditions in children.
Goldacre is notorious for his defence of the MMR vaccine against claims it causes autism and for his public attacks as a national newspaper column writer on those he does not agree with.
Edwards' warning should be the least of Ben Goldacre's concerns. Goldacre encourages a "posse" on his Badscience.net blog including some notorious nutters and bullies who roam the internet ridiculing, abusing and bullying those whom Goldacre and his acolytes choose not to agree with. Targets include parents of vaccine damaged children and those concerned for the health and safety of children threatened by serious adverse vaccine reactions.
Why would you support such an individual?
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/nutters-and-journalists-who-support-ben-goldacre/
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsI don't think that's true at all. I'm sure there are some that feel that way, but it's not an overall representation.<br /> <br />Goldacre on the other hand has earned his reputation and what I can't understand is why you would hitch your wagon to some one that is the embodiment of everything you speak out against. If a researcher wrote an article supporting drug trials you would accuse him of being everything Goldacre is.Your response to the facts is to point a finger at the drug companies. Why not defend the person you quote instead?<br /> <br />I have to wonder, did you read the entire 10 pages of his article or the book it was an excerpt from? I have and I researched the author as I do anything I read.<br /> <br />Look at this guy's reputation. He is a media bully and has been accused of taking confidential information that was entrusted to his father, a Professor at Oxford, and used it in his column to make it look like he had some kind of insight. More opinion of the scientific community; <br /> <br /><b><i>Journalist Jim Edwards blogging on the CBS network Bnet issued a warning to Dr Ben Goldacre to respond to the claims that he [Goldacre> had failed to disclose that his father Michael J. Goldacre is a researcher responsible for the publication of medical papers claiming a lack of a causal association between vaccines and autistic conditions in children.</i></b><br /> <br /><b><i>Goldacre is notorious for his defence of the MMR vaccine against claims it causes autism and for his public attacks as a national newspaper column writer on those he does not agree with.</i></b><br /> <br /><b><i>Edwards' warning should be the least of Ben Goldacre's concerns. Goldacre encourages a "posse" on his Badscience.net blog including some notorious nutters and bullies who roam the internet ridiculing, abusing and bullying those whom Goldacre and his acolytes choose not to agree with. Targets include parents of vaccine damaged children and those concerned for the health and safety of children threatened by serious adverse vaccine reactions.</i></b><b><i></i></b><br /> Why would you support such an individual?<br /> <br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/nutters-and-journalists-who-support-ben-goldacre/">http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/nutters-and-journalists-who-support-ben-goldacre/</a> <br />
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Has Goldacre been fined Billions of dollars by the Justice Department for fraud?
If not, he has a lot of catching up to do to keep up with big pharma.
If not, he has a lot of catching up to do to keep up with big pharma.
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsHas Goldacre been fined Billions of dollars by the Justice Department for fraud? <br /><br />If not, he has a lot of catching up to do to keep up with big pharma.
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
You're reaching, we've all read the old posts about fines and that's not the discussion here, defend Dr. Goldacre, show us what you know about him, educate us. You brought him into this discussion, I want to know more about him and his book that I may have missed when I read it.
FYI, he is sued on a regular basis.
FYI, he is sued on a regular basis.
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsYou're reaching, we've all read the old posts about fines and that's not the discussion here, defend Dr. Goldacre, show us what you know about him, educate us. You brought him into this discussion, I want to know more about him and his book that I may have missed when I read it.<br /> <br />FYI, he is sued on a regular basis.
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Not here to defend Mr. Goldacre. But I do agree with his assessment of how drug company funded studies cherry pick data.
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsNot here to defend Mr. Goldacre. But I do agree with his assessment of how drug company funded studies cherry pick data.
bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:
I just learned about Goldacre. Never heard of him before posting this thread.
Next thing I know a Cardiologist is sharing a MedPage Today article about Goldacre on my facebook.
Sounds like he wants drug companies to share all trial results and not allow any trials to go "Missing in Action" as he puts it.
Whats wrong with sharing all trial results?
Next thing I know a Cardiologist is sharing a MedPage Today article about Goldacre on my facebook.
Sounds like he wants drug companies to share all trial results and not allow any trials to go "Missing in Action" as he puts it.
Whats wrong with sharing all trial results?
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsI just learned about Goldacre. Never heard of him before posting this thread. <br /><br />Next thing I know a Cardiologist is sharing a MedPage Today article about Goldacre on my facebook. <br /><br />Sounds like he wants drug companies to share all trial results and not allow any trials to go "Missing in Action" as he puts it.<br /><br />Whats wrong with sharing all trial results?
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
I never thought I would see the day where you would change your standards a thus how I view your position. You have been consistent if nothing else. You have always maintained that all trials MUST be of no value because the drug companies funding the trials are dishonest or have too much to gain. Yet now you have no problem with a little corruption and dishonesty as long as it supports your view. Seems like you want it both ways, I don't think that will work. So it's OK for a anti-establishment doctor to be dishonest and his work is unquestioned, correct? What a double standard, it will be hard to look at your opinions the same way again. Are you aware that the main stream media in the UK uses that same term when reviewing his book. They accuse him of "cherry picking" individual unrelated incidences and stringing them together to make a case against the pharma industry in the UK that just doesn't work. I didn't make much sense to me either. Did it to you when you read his book?
Sounds like he wants drug companies to share all trial results and not allow any trials to go "Missing in Action" as he puts it.
You may want to check out FDAAA 801. The issues he has are more in the UK. Do your homework.
Sounds like he wants drug companies to share all trial results and not allow any trials to go "Missing in Action" as he puts it.
You may want to check out FDAAA 801. The issues he has are more in the UK. Do your homework.
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsI never thought I would see the day where you would change your standards a thus how I view your position. You have been consistent if nothing else. You have always maintained that all trials <b><i>MUST</i></b> be of no value because the drug companies funding the trials are dishonest or have too much to gain. Yet now you have no problem with a little corruption and dishonesty as long as it supports your view. Seems like you want it both ways, I don't think that will work. So it's OK for a anti-establishment doctor to be dishonest and his work is unquestioned, correct? What a double standard, it will be hard to look at your opinions the same way again. Are you aware that the main stream media in the UK uses that same term when reviewing his book. They accuse him of "cherry picking" individual unrelated incidences and stringing them together to make a case against the pharma industry in the UK that just doesn't work. I didn't make much sense to me either. Did it to you when you read his book?<br /> <br /><b><i>Sounds like he wants drug companies to share all trial results and not allow any trials to go "Missing in Action" as he puts it.<br /></i></b><br />You may want to check out FDAAA 801. The issues he has are more in the UK. Do your homework.
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Goldacre brings up a good point. Should drug companies share all trial results?
Regardless of Goldacres' past, he asks a good question...and regardless of GSK's past they reportedly now support drug companies sharing ALL trial results.
So I ask the question here on webmd. Should drug companies share all trial results?
Regardless of Goldacres' past, he asks a good question...and regardless of GSK's past they reportedly now support drug companies sharing ALL trial results.
So I ask the question here on webmd. Should drug companies share all trial results?
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsGoldacre brings up a good point. Should drug companies share all trial results? <br /><br />Regardless of Goldacres' past, he asks a good question...and regardless of GSK's past they reportedly now support drug companies sharing ALL trial results.<br /><br />So I ask the question here on webmd. Should drug companies share all trial results?
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
And again I say check out FDAAA 801 which requires trial results to be published.
Here's the summary;
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa
Here's the law as it is on the books;
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf#page=82
Here's the summary;
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa
Here's the law as it is on the books;
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf#page=82
Report This| Share this:How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive ResultsAnd again I say check out FDAAA 801 which requires trial results to be published.<br /> <br />Here's the summary;<br /> <br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa">http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/manage-recs/fdaaa</a> <br /> <br />Here's the law as it is on the books;<br /> <br /><a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf#page=82">http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf#page=82</a>
Featuring Experts
There are no Expert stories for this community right nowHelpful Tips
Lower choleterol without drugs
I also had cholesterol numbers that kept inching higher. At 237 my dr. suggested meds. I don't want to go that route so took a good look at ... More
Was this Helpful?
14
of
16 found this helpful
- Lower Cholesterol by changing my chemical balance - eating habits
- Lower cholesterol without drugs
- hair loss
Helpful Resources
Related News
Related Drug Reviews
- Drug Name User Reviews
Report Problems to the
Food and Drug Administration
You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.
Other Cholesterol Management Information
More Related Communities
The opinions expressed in WebMD User-generated content areas like communities, reviews, ratings, or blogs are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. User-generated content areas are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service, or treatment.
Do not consider WebMD User-generated content as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.
Health Solutions From Our Sponsors
About WebMD Advertise With Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sponsor Policy Site Map Careers Contact Us
First Aid WebMD Magazine WebMD Health Record WebMD Mobile Newsletters Dictionary Physician Directory
©2005-2013 WebMD, LLC. All rights reserved.
WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information.