Skip to content
My WebMD Sign In, Sign Up
How Pharma Funded Research Cherry Picks Positive Results
avatar
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
Reply
 
avatar
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.
 
avatar
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.
 
avatar
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.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
You can disagree with him, but I think he is 100% correct.
 
avatar
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

 
avatar
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!
 
avatar
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/
 
avatar
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.
 
avatar
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.
 
avatar
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.
 
avatar
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?
 
avatar
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.
 
avatar
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?
 
avatar
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


Featuring Experts

There are no Expert stories for this community right now

Helpful Tips

LOWERING CHOLESTEROL NATURALLY
I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET MY CHOLESTEROL DOWN WITHOUT STATINS AND FINALLY I AM GETTING SOMEWHERE. I STARTED TAKING PANTETHINE 300 MG. TWICE ... More
Was this Helpful?
14 of 14 found this helpful

Helpful Resources

Be the first to post a Resource!