Big Pharma at it again!

[dieseltaylor]

As you probably know it is almost routine that the testing of drugs is subject to a lot of shading in what gets published and how trials are managed. It has been a running sore pretty much since testing commenced.

Anyway an improvement would be if all trials were published to show the "failures" aswell as the successes.

http://www.alltrials.net/2013/pharmaceutical-industry-bodies-plan-to-mobilise-patient-groups/

As you can see from the above the trade bodies for the pharma industry are keen to maintain the status quo by "mobilising patient groups". If you have been following the history of the pharma industry you will know that setting up fake journals and organisations is not unknown so be prepared for startlingly new patient "bodies" to spring up.

By the way Tamiflu ,which has been widely bought for epidemics with even the UK having half a billion quids worth, is an interesting example of publication bias:

" .....there were substantial problems with the design, conduct and availability of information from many of the trials. Due to these concerns we decided not to proceed with a meta-analysis of all the oseltamivir data as we had intended. Instead we carried out analyses of effects on symptoms (shortens them by 21 hours or so) and hospitalisations (no evidence of effect) of people with influenza-like illness (’flu’)on data from all the people enrolled in treatment trials of oseltamivir.

Other outcomes could not be assessed due to unavailability of data for all the people enrolled in treatment trials of oseltamivir. Our independent analysis concurs with the conservative conclusions regarding the effects of both drugs by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA only allowed claims of effectiveness of both drugs for the prevention and treatment of symptoms of influenza and not on other effects (such as interruption of person-to-person spread of the influenza virus or prevention of pneumonia). There is evidence to suggest that both drugs are associated with harms (oseltamivir: nausea, vomiting; zanamivir: probably asthma). The FDA described the overall performance of both drugs as “modest”.

We expect full clinical study reports containing study protocol, reporting analysis plan, statistical analysis plan and individual patient data to clarify outstanding issues. These full clinical study reports are at present unavailable to us.

B A C K G R O U N D

In the midst of the A/H1N1 outbreak in June 2009, the Australianand UK governments commissioned an update of our long-standing Cochrane review on neuraminidase inhibitors (NIs) for influenza in (otherwise) healthy adults. The review had first been published in 1999 and had a major update in 2006 and a minor update in 2008. At the same time a similar review on children had also been published (Shun-Shin 2009).

We initially anticipated that the update of the review would likely reflect only updated pharmacovigilance data and not the incorporation of new trial evidence. This was because NIs (especially oseltamivir, better known as Tamiflu) had become an established public health drug (see Glossary in Appendix 1).

In the end, the 2009 update was inconclusive (Jefferson 2010a) as we were unable to verify the data underlying manufacturer and government claims about the effectiveness of oseltamivir . The claims were based on clinical trial evidence included in a published non-systematic meta-analysis of 10 manufacturer-funded clinical trials of oseltamivir for the treatment of influenza in people of all ages (Kaiser 2003). Eight of the 10 trials in the Kaiser et al meta-analysis have never been published (Jefferson 2009a) and their complete data sets are not available from either the authors or the manufacturers. This review reports our efforts to get to the bottom of the issue of the effects of NIs by appraising evidence from unpublished clinical study reports (see Glossary Appendix 1) and regulatory documents containing comments and reviews. We have called the body of clinical studies and regulatory comments ’regulatory information’."

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD008965.pub3/pdf/standard

I hope you find this interesting. Their is a very well written book called "Bad Medicine" by Ben Goldacre which covers amongst other things the lies and how the media colludes. He has also spoken on TED.

http://www.badscience.net/2012/09/i-did-a-talk-at-ted-about-drug-companies-and-hidden-data/

[Stalins Organ]

I think you mean "at it STILL" rather than "again"

you might enjoy reading Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" blog if you haven't already, especially his "head to head" with "Big Pharma" on this issue in the British Medical Journal

[John Kettler]

Then you have the FDA run by a doctor, thus, a member of the AMA which is synonymous with Big Pharma and, rather than protecting us (purported real function of the FDA), instead protects and nurtures Big Pharma.

There's also my "favorite" low key ad

(VO)

"Side effects may include death...If you suffer any side effects, see your doctor immediately."

(End VO)

Uh huh.

On a parallel track, here's some appalling info on what Big Ag's doing to us. Almost fell out of my chair. Piece talks about fluoride contamination of standard (as opposed to organic) produce because of fluoride loaded pesticides. THe Nazis, BTW, fluoridated the water of concentration camp inmates to keep them docile. Note allowable levels reported in article at link.

http://www.naturalnews.com/036753_fluoride_pesticides_grapes.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Stalins Organ]

The Nazis did not use fluoride in concentration camps - but it is a great illustration of godwins law in action - which means JK loses!!

There is actually no credible evidence that fluoride was used in any concentration camps at all.

The sole source of the story was Charles Perkins - so Who was Charles Perkins and where did he get his info?

There is a claim he was sent by the US Govt to take charge of I.G. Faben after WW2 - but Perkins himself makes no actual mention of any connection with I. G. Faben in his book - an odd omission since it would be quite an important association to establish his credentials, and neither he nor fluoride rate any mention in "The Crime and Punishment of IG Farben".

Also I.G. Farbin had it's own war trial - the records are available online & I see no mention of Perkins or Fluoride in them - but they are very long - it's entirely possible I missed it so please feel free to point them out if you find any.

his failure to provide any documented link is analysed here.

Others have looked for evidence to support the claim - eg this forum discussion from 2009, and this one - AFAIK no-one has actually found any.

[John Kettler]

Stalin's Organist,

Well argued! This is a good discussion of the matter.

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2011/oct/06/critics-water-fluoridation/truth-about-fluoride-doesnt-include-nazi-myth/

Perkins side, together with amplifying remarks from research chemist Dr. Bronner, who happened to be Einstein's nephew.

http://rense.com/general79/hd3.htm

Skeptical site discussion of the matter. I have long known of the book, The Crime & Punishment of I.G. Farben, but I can't speak to the quote therein. I did, though, manage to find this chilling and groggy book online.

http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/sociopol_igfarben02.htm#Contents

Am going to continue to look into the matter, but I have other irons in the fire.

Regards,

John Kettler