Woo With Water

<< < (2/4) > >>

Mefiante (February 12, 2007, 07:33:42 AM):
The same phenomenon ...

... in normal quantities.
Once again, long on accusation, short on evidence. Remedy, please.

'Luthon64
kennyg (February 14, 2007, 16:23:40 PM):
Once again, long on accusation, short on evidence. Remedy, please.

A search of the New England Journal of Medicine will provide all you need in the way of evidence. The topic of COX-2 inhibitors and especially the subject of the blatant fraud in the Vioxx trials was covered in both articles and editorials.

Mefiante (February 15, 2007, 10:14:28 AM):
A search of the New England Journal of Medicine will provide all you need in the way of evidence. The topic of COX-2 inhibitors and especially the subject of the blatant fraud in the Vioxx trials was covered in both articles and editorials.
As the accuser, the onus is on you.

'Luthon64
Mefiante (February 15, 2007, 11:45:30 AM):
Much more to the point, this thread began by looking at the dubious health claims of yet another in an apparently interminable succession of fast-buck snake oil remedies that beset the ordinary Joe and Jane.

Since then, it has been turned into an axe-grinding session, except that the axe itself is largely missing, and what you hear are some imprudently placed knuckles being scraped by the grindstone.

It would be naïve to suggest that drug companies fund clinical trials for their products purely out of altruism, so that the accusation of deliberate bias or even manipulation of results has some basis in reality, not to mention Hollywood. Such goings-on are inexcusable, not only for the potential harm they can wreak on users of the tested products, but also because, as we can clearly see in this thread, they afford an opportunity to pull the entirety of medical science into disrepute - sullied by association, as it were.

There have, however, been some moves afoot to, er..., remedy the situation. When publishing the findings of clinical trials, the authors are required to disclose their affiliations and the source of funding for the trials by way of a declaration that accompanies the report. This ensures that the peer-review process is diligently followed and goes a long way towards reducing this type of research fraud.

The other, less obvious, remedial prong is that a particular drug, especially when its use becomes more widespread, is subjected to further trials by other agencies. This, too, can act as a handbrake on anyone contemplating fraud.

And, finally, these failings lend absolutely no weight to the claims of woo-woo brigands.

'Luthon64
Dr. Nancy Malik (July 14, 2008, 06:09:48 AM):
The same phenomenon is happening a lot with patent drugs these days. New drugs are brought to the market that have little or no benefit over older drugs apart from the fact that they are new, and hence protected by patent for a number of years.

There are numerous cases, documented in the medical journals, where clinical trials have been anything but truthful with their findings. In literally hundreds of trials, the results have been manipulated to favour the new drug where the raw data does not support such findings. Outright fraud is not uncommon.

One of the interesting practices is to purge the control (placebo) group of all individuals who do not fit the intended profile. This is a total violation of the principles of a placebo controlled double-blind protocol.

The result is that drugs get approved and put on the market that are not significantly more effective than older drugs, or do not have significantly less side-effects than the older drugs. They are, however significantly more expensive than the older drugs that have generics in the market.

One example of this is the class of drugs known as COX-2 inhibitors. They are used for pain relief for people with inflammation diseases like arthritis. The claim was that COX-2 inhibitors cause significantly less gastric distress than older drugs like ibuprofen. Not only has that claim proven to be false, the clinical trials have been re-examined and proof of malfesance has been uncovered. What's worse is that COX-2 inhibitors have a side effect in that they can cause heart attacks. Vioxx was the first of the COX-2 inhibitors to be withdrawn from the market, but not before it killed an estimated 55000 people in the USA.

What then makes this saga boggle the mind is that an FDA panel then voted to reapprove Vioxx and keep Bextra in the market. Of the panel of 32 experts, 10 of them had financial ties with the manufacturers. Had those 10 experts not voted, the panel would have voted 12 to 8 to withdraw Bextra from the market and 14 to 8 to keep Vioxx off the market.

While the "special" water might not do anything to you but deplete your wallet, at least water isn't toxic in normal quantities.


http://www.the7thfire.com/health_and_nutrition/Prescription_drugs_deaths.htm
http://www.deathbymodernmedicine.com/

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Skeptic Forum Board Index

Non-mobile version of page