Medical Research or Drug Company Secrets?

[Guest guest]

Another great article from Dr. Mercola's website.

Misty

http://www..com

 

 

Medical Research or Drug Company Secrets?

 

Ideally, medical research should be independent and should receive

its support from non-industry sources, such as governments. However,

funding for such research can be hard to come by, if not non-

existent.

 

In reality, drug companies have become the largest sponsors of

medical research. The research produces valuable information, but a

recent report voiced concern that the sponsors' influence and

control over the studies may represent a conflict of interest.

 

Pharmaceutical companies represent such a large portion of medical

studies that results could inappropriately impact healthcare

policies, leaving them in favor of drug treatment rather than non-

drug alternatives. At the same time, this research " monopoly " could

make it harder for alternative opinions to be heard, thus furthering

the use of drugs and possibly causing important new routes of

research to be overlooked.

 

The report noted that pharmaceutical companies spend more time on

the generation and dissemination of information than they do

producing medicines. Though this is partly to satisfy licensing

requirements and protect patents, companies also use this data to

promote sales of their medications. The authors worry that as

independent sources of information decrease, prescribers will become

reliant on drug-company representatives for information on

medications.

 

The report, which focuses on multinational drug firms, brings up the

fact that medical research results are selectively released and

often kept secret from the public. Only select data is made

publically available through papers in medical journals,

presentations at medical conferences or product labeling.

 

One author stated that when results support a product, there is

ample information released about the product and its functions.

Conversely, if a product does not perform well in a study,

information is often hard to come by.

 

Publication is a major way that research studies can raise awareness

about a drug, however publishing information that may cast doubt

about a drug could cause product sales to go down. To increase drug

sales, it is necessary that the publication show the product in a

positive way. As a possible result of this, the report states that

trials with negative results tend to be published much later than

those with positive conclusions.

 

Additionally, authors note that company-sponsored studies tend to

have results that favor the sponsor's product much more than those

sponsored by other sources. Though it is unclear why this trend

happens, according to the report, a bias in trial design is

possible. The study also notes that drug companies have threatened

legal action to stop the publishing of negative material and to

recover the value of lost sales. Moreover, about 30 percent of

researcher's contracts contain a statement allowing sponsors to

delete information from a report and delay publication.

 

Many journals also receive income from drug companies through

advertising. As a result, publishers may be influenced to publish

results that are favorable to the sponsors, thereby furthering the

prevalence of positive results in published reports.

 

Another aspect of the dilemma is that regulations in place do little

to control drug companies' promotions of their products. Much of the

policing is left up to the drug companies' themselves. The authors

mention drug firms' funding of patient-advocacy groups and giving

gifts to doctors as potential problems.

 

Though authors state that pharmaceutical companies' investment in

medical research produces a lot of valuable information, they

believe that the companies' control over the studies and lack of

openness regarding research threatens patients' best interests. They

state that consumers should be aware of the potential consequences

of industry-dominated research.

 

The Lancet November 2, 2002; 360: 1405-09

 

 

---

-----------

DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

 

The traditional medical paradigm is fatally flawed. Relying on drugs

and surgeries to correct diseases caused by poor diet and stress is

a prescription for disaster.

 

If you haven't seen the signs around you please take notice. Health

costs are rising through the roof, and shortly we will be spending

over two trillion dollars a year for health care in the U.S.

 

It is safe to estimate that over three-fourths of this money is

wasted on short-term fixes, primarily drugs and surgeries, which in

no way address the long-term cause of the problem.

 

If those funds were redirected to optimize food and stress concerns,

we would have more than enough funds left over to help the more than

40 million uninsured Americans.

 

The above Lancet editorial provides a solid review of the pervasive

influence of drug companies.

 

By being aware of their self-interested motives you can keep

yourself from falling into their deceptive traps.

 

www.mercola.com

[Guest guest]

Thanks, Misty.

 

Only in a monopoly.

 

Namaste`

 

Walt

 

-

<mistytrepke

 

Saturday, February 15, 2003 5:58 AM

Medical Research or Drug Company Secrets?

 

 

> Another great article from Dr. Mercola's website.

> Misty

> http://www..com

>

>

> Medical Research or Drug Company Secrets?

>

> Ideally, medical research should be independent and should receive

> its support from non-industry sources, such as governments. However,

> funding for such research can be hard to come by, if not non-

> existent.

>

> In reality, drug companies have become the largest sponsors of

> medical research. The research produces valuable information, but a

> recent report voiced concern that the sponsors' influence and

> control over the studies may represent a conflict of interest.

>

> Pharmaceutical companies represent such a large portion of medical

> studies that results could inappropriately impact healthcare

> policies, leaving them in favor of drug treatment rather than non-

> drug alternatives. At the same time, this research " monopoly " could

> make it harder for alternative opinions to be heard, thus furthering

> the use of drugs and possibly causing important new routes of

> research to be overlooked.

>

> The report noted that pharmaceutical companies spend more time on

> the generation and dissemination of information than they do

> producing medicines. Though this is partly to satisfy licensing

> requirements and protect patents, companies also use this data to

> promote sales of their medications. The authors worry that as

> independent sources of information decrease, prescribers will become

> reliant on drug-company representatives for information on

> medications.

>

> The report, which focuses on multinational drug firms, brings up the

> fact that medical research results are selectively released and

> often kept secret from the public. Only select data is made

> publically available through papers in medical journals,

> presentations at medical conferences or product labeling.

>

> One author stated that when results support a product, there is

> ample information released about the product and its functions.

> Conversely, if a product does not perform well in a study,

> information is often hard to come by.

>

> Publication is a major way that research studies can raise awareness

> about a drug, however publishing information that may cast doubt

> about a drug could cause product sales to go down. To increase drug

> sales, it is necessary that the publication show the product in a

> positive way. As a possible result of this, the report states that

> trials with negative results tend to be published much later than

> those with positive conclusions.

>

> Additionally, authors note that company-sponsored studies tend to

> have results that favor the sponsor's product much more than those

> sponsored by other sources. Though it is unclear why this trend

> happens, according to the report, a bias in trial design is

> possible. The study also notes that drug companies have threatened

> legal action to stop the publishing of negative material and to

> recover the value of lost sales. Moreover, about 30 percent of

> researcher's contracts contain a statement allowing sponsors to

> delete information from a report and delay publication.

>

> Many journals also receive income from drug companies through

> advertising. As a result, publishers may be influenced to publish

> results that are favorable to the sponsors, thereby furthering the

> prevalence of positive results in published reports.

>

> Another aspect of the dilemma is that regulations in place do little

> to control drug companies' promotions of their products. Much of the

> policing is left up to the drug companies' themselves. The authors

> mention drug firms' funding of patient-advocacy groups and giving

> gifts to doctors as potential problems.

>

> Though authors state that pharmaceutical companies' investment in

> medical research produces a lot of valuable information, they

> believe that the companies' control over the studies and lack of

> openness regarding research threatens patients' best interests. They

> state that consumers should be aware of the potential consequences

> of industry-dominated research.

>

> The Lancet November 2, 2002; 360: 1405-09

>

>

> ---

> -----------

> DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:

>

> The traditional medical paradigm is fatally flawed. Relying on drugs

> and surgeries to correct diseases caused by poor diet and stress is

> a prescription for disaster.

>

> If you haven't seen the signs around you please take notice. Health

> costs are rising through the roof, and shortly we will be spending

> over two trillion dollars a year for health care in the U.S.

>

> It is safe to estimate that over three-fourths of this money is

> wasted on short-term fixes, primarily drugs and surgeries, which in

> no way address the long-term cause of the problem.

>

> If those funds were redirected to optimize food and stress concerns,

> we would have more than enough funds left over to help the more than

> 40 million uninsured Americans.

>

> The above Lancet editorial provides a solid review of the pervasive

> influence of drug companies.

>

> By being aware of their self-interested motives you can keep

> yourself from falling into their deceptive traps.

>

> www.mercola.com

>

>

>

>

>