A New Low in Drug Research: 21 Fabricated Studies

[Guest guest]

A New Low in Drug Research: 21 Fabricated Studies

_http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/04/A-New-Low-in-

Drug-Research-21-Fabricated-Studies.aspx_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/04/04/A-New-Low-in-Drug\

-Research-21-Fabricated-Studie

s.aspx)

 

Scott S. Reuben, a prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist, allegedly

fabricated 21 medical studies that claimed to show benefits from painkillers

like Vioxx and Celebrex.

 

Baystate Medical Center said Reuben had faked data used in the studies,

which were published in several anesthesiology journals between 1996 and

2008. The hospital has asked the medical journals to retract the studies. The

studies reported favorable results from the use of painkillers Bextra and

Vioxx -- both since withdrawn -- as well as Celebrex and Lyrica. Dr. Reuben*s

research work also claimed positive findings for the antidepressant Effexor

XR as a pain killer.

 

The retractions, first reported in Anesthesiology News, have caused

anesthesiologists to reconsider the use of certain practices adopted as a

result

of Dr. Reuben*s research. His work was considered important in encouraging

doctors to combine the use of painkillers like Celebrex and Lyrica for

patients undergoing common procedures such as knee and hip replacements.

 

Sources:

 

_Wall Street Journal March 11, 2009_

(http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672510903888207.html)

 

 

Dr. Mercola*s Comments:

 

I*ve been exposing the conflicts of interest and deceit surrounding drug

research since I started this Web site more than a decade ago. In that time I

’ve learned quite a bit of disturbing information about how far drug

companies and their researchers are willing to bend the rules to get the

results

they’re after.

 

But this example by Dr. Scott Reuben really takes the cake.

 

Here was a well-respected, prominent anesthesiologist, former chief of

acute pain of the Baystate Medical Center, Springfield, Mass. and a former

professor at Tufts University*s medical school. And he allegedly fabricated

the data for 21 studies!

 

He just simply made the results all up as if it was some fantasy video

game he was playing.

 

Aside from saying, **Dr. Reuben deeply regrets that this happened,** the

doctor*s attorney had little in way of explanation except to say that a peer

review committee **justly and fairly considered** a set of **extenuating

circumstances.**

 

It will be interesting to hear if those **extenuating circumstances* are

ever revealed, but I doubt they could ever offer an explanation for faking

21 research studies.

 

It seems nearly every day more evidence emerges to further drain the

credibility of drug research studies.

 

 

If the Results Don*t Fit, Bury Them!

 

 

Just last month it came out that drugmaker AstraZeneca _“buriedâ€

unfavorable studies_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/21/Seroquel-Studies-\

Buried-by-AstraZeneca.aspx) on its antipsychotic drug

Seroquel that showed it may cause diabetes and other health problems.

 

Across the board, drugmakers do an excellent job of publicizing the things

they want you to know, while keeping very quiet about the rest. They*re

also well known for funding their own studies so they can have a say in how

the results turn out. This isn*t just my opinion; it*s well known that

studies funded by industry or conducted by researchers with industry ties tend

to _favor corporate interests_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/06/08/studies-funded-by\

-drug-companies-favor-drugs-80-percent-of-t

he-time.aspx) .

 

Further, industry-sponsored studies tend to be the ones more likely to be

published in medical journals. In fact, a Cochrane Collaboration review and

analysis of published flu vaccine studies found that _flu vaccine studies

sponsored by industry_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/05/Vaccine-Studies-U\

nder-the-Influence-of-Pharma.aspx) are treated

more favorably by medical journals even when the studies are of poor

quality -- which begs the question, who is responsible for deciding what gets

published in the first place?

 

 

How do Research Studies Make it Into Medical Journals?

 

 

Dr. Reuben succeeded in getting numerous studies published, despite the

fact that the data from 21 studies was imaginary. And those studies may have

continued to be accepted as fact and swaying the prescribing habits of

doctors, had a routine audit not raised a few red flags. It was only due to

these flagged discrepancies in Dr. Reuben*s work that a larger investigation

was later launched.

 

So how did those false studies, or any studies for that matter, become

worthy of being published?

 

A very good question, and one I*d like the answer to as well, because it*s

almost impossible to find out what happens in the vetting process as peer

reviewers are unpaid, anonymous and unaccountable. And although the system

is based on the best of intentions, it lacks consistent standards and the

expertise of the reviewers can vary widely from journal to journal.

 

This leaves the field wide open to reviewers to base their decisions on

their own prejudices. And more often than not, there is a distinct tendency

to let flawed papers through if their conclusion is favorable for vaccines

or other drugs.

 

Back in 2005, Dr. John Ioannidis, an epidemiologist at Ioannina School of

Medicine, Greece, showed that there is less than a 50 percent chance that

the results of any randomly chosen scientific paper will be true.

 

Dr. Ioannidis did it again just last year, showing that much of scientific

research being published is _highly questionable_

(http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/11/04/why-you-can-t-tru\

st-most-studies-on-hea

lth.aspx) . According to his study:

 

 

**Simulations show that for most study designs and settings, it is more

likely for a research claim to be false than true.**

 

 

He noted problems with experimental and statistical methods as the main

culprits, including factors such as small sample sizes, poor study design,

researcher bias and selective reporting. The newer study, meanwhile, suggests

that economic conditions, such as oligopolies, artificial scarcities and

the winner’s curse, are largely to blame for incorrect research.

 

Because of the way this system runs, journals may be more likely to

publish studies that show dramatic results, positive results, or results from

**hot** competitive fields. None of this, of course, has anything to do with

scientific merit or accuracy, and perhaps that*s why 21 of Dr. Reuben*s fake

studies made it into medical journals.

 

 

Keeping an Eye Out for Yourself

 

 

When evaluating health news, it is wise to be cautious -- even if it*s

published in a scientific journal. You must come to the realization that YOU

are responsible for your, and your family*s, health -- not me, not your

doctor, and certainly not any researchers.

 

Be aware, too, that your doctor may be swayed by these very same dubious

studies, and as a result encourage you to take a certain drug or vaccine.

Again, do not simply take their word for it.

 

A helpful strategy, although not always easy to do, is to see who funded

the study. If it is a drug company and the study claims good results with

one of their drugs, one should be highly skeptical that something fishy might

be going on and not adopt the conclusions as valid until it is confirmed

by a more reliable source.

 

Remember, medicine is a business, and so are the journals publishing the

science used as the basis for medicine. This means you need to view any and

all health recommendations with an air of skepticism, as you would when

evaluating the claims for a new car.