More Research Scandals in the News
A string of scandals have been revealed in the drug
industry recently,
ranging
from covered-up drug risks to falsified
data.
In yet another incident, research results were
submitted under the name
of a
doctor who had neither written
it, reviewed it, nor verified its accuracy.
40 Percent Removed
Procter and Gamble may have removed as much as
40 percent of the data
from a recent study of the osteoporosis
drug Actonel, according to
Dr. Aubrey Blunsohn (a British researcher
and bone expert), distorting
the final results.
Then, not only did Procter and Gamble submit
results under his name,
they wouldn't allow him to look at
the final version until months after
it was submitted to the
American Society for Bone and Mineral Research.
Trying to Ensure Accuracy
Scientific journals are still grappling with
how to ensure that results they print are complete and accurate
in light of these problems. It's a difficult question, especially
since drug companies fund roughly 70 percent of studies of
medications in the United States. The results they get are
increasingly being shown to be biased and inaccurate.
After the bad publicity following attempted coverups
of the increased suicide risk connected with antidepressants
and heart problems associated with Vioxx, the drug companies
vowed to do better. Medical journals and some politicians are
trying to take steps to ensure that they do.
Should Companies Help Write the Studies
They Fund?
But problems remain. While many leading scientific
journals require researchers to affirm that they analyzed all
the raw data, not averages or compilations from someone else,
a recent survey found a 17 percent rate of reported disputes
over access to data.
There was also widespread disagreement over whether
companies that pay for research should help write results for
publication.
Recently, the New England Journal of Medicine published a follow-up reiterating
its concerns about Merck's deletions to their deceptive Vioxx study in
2000.
Apparently, Merck isn't alone.
The most galling part of Dr. Blunsohn's difficulties
with Procter and Gamble is that he was suspended by Sheffield
University for discussing the problem in the media, although
the university says it encouraged him to pursue the matter
through proper channels.
Dr. Blunsohn's beef with Procter and Gamble isn't
surprising, as mega-drug companies often steal the credibility
of university scientists to give their drug's test results
credibility, a factor that may have been responsible for about
a third of studies published over a 13-year period whose results
were overstated or contradicted.
But these scandals that have made the news are,
frankly, just the tip of the iceberg. There is blatant conflict
of interest that controls what studies are funded, what topics
are chosen for research, and even what results will be claimed.
The drug companies have the money and call the
shots, and their research always seems to come up saying "our
drugs are good," "our drugs are safe," and "buy
our drugs."
Even the peer review process, dependent as it
is on the prejudices of the scientists performing the reviews,
has a distinct tendency to let flawed papers through if they
are on "acceptable" topics, while casting a much
more disapproving eye on "alternative" medicine,
no matter how solid its foundation in medical fact.
A 2005 survey showed that scientists cannot and do not remain objective in
the face of corporate pressures. Scientists admitted to:
Falsifying or "cooking" research
data
Not properly disclosing conflicts of
interest
Failing to present contrary data
Using inadequate or inappropriate research
design
Dropping observations or data points,
and inadequate record keeping
Of more than 3,000 scientists surveyed, 20.6
percent admitted to changing the design, methodology or results
of a study in response to pressure from the funding source.
And this could be a gross underestimate of actual
violations, since misbehaving scientists may have been less
likely than others to respond to the survey for fear of discovery.
Good science must be based in fact rather than
prejudice, and be free of monetary influence from those who
want to see results go a certain way. The current processes
for funding, performing and peer reviewing medical studies
could all use a good overhaul.
The drug companies do not care about your health.
They care about making a profit. And they will blatantly lie
to get you to buy their drugs so they can make that profit
if they need to, especially since punishments for doing so
are usually little more than a slap on the wrist.
That's why my vision of transorming the existing
medical paradigm is of such critical importance. When it comes
to medical research, the system must change, because your lives
are quite literally at stake. Dr. Mercola
If you have any questions or need assistance with ordering
online or by phone, we are pleased to help!!
