Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dayuhan who wrote (11831)	5/3/2002 1:09:55 AM
From: Rick Julian	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

I knew people who refused to consume "natural remedies" but gladly stuffed scientifically santioned drugs like Thalidomide down their throats and ended up with flippered children. To them "years of rigorous peer-reviewed testing" offers little solace now . Did you know that more than 50 per cent of scientific advisors to the Food and Drug Administration have financial ties to pharmaceutical companies whose drugs they are reviewing for safety and effectiveness? Do you imagine this could influence their perception of the "facts" ? I would imagine scientists financed by a drug company tend to view that company’s data more favorably than those who have no such ties. " . . . medical literature contains many articles expressing concern about industrial funding of clinical research. Stelfox et al. found that authors whose work supported the safety of calcium-channel antagonists had a higher frequency of financial relationships with the drugs' manufacturers than authors whose work did not support the safety of these medications. (1) Davidson reported that results favoring a new therapy over a traditional one were more likely if the study was funded by the new therapy's manufacturer. (2) Cho and Bero demonstrated that articles from symposiums sponsored by a single drug company were more likely than articles without company support to have outcomes favorable to the sponsor's drugs. (3) Friedberg et al. reported that 5 percent of industry-sponsored pharmacoeconomic studies of cancer drugs reached unfavorable conclusions about the company's products, as compared with 38 percent of studies with nonprofit funding that reached similar conclusions. (4) " Now what picture do you have in your mind when you swallow your pills? What syndrome does it represent? p.s . I don't take natural remedies amd haveonly had one long term prescription in my life--Lipitor, and I'm not so crazy about its potential longterm effects on my liver regardless of what Pfizer says.