There is an interesting article that came my way about clinical trial transparency here. Publication bias has been an issue for decades. Given the technology available to us now, it does seem a reasonable requirement to make available all clinical data (barring proprietary information) on FDA approved drugs to those who want to view it. In a way, it's just an extension of the PI. Thoughts?
That makes sense to me. When considering studies, do you you check the source of funding. I am always highly skeptical of studies that are funded by pharma companies.
I do, although sometimes pharma data is the only data we have. One of the advantages of the transparency requirement is that we could see what pharma chooses not to publish, which is almost as good as having non-pharma sponsored data.
I read that a lawsuit alleges Merck lied about the efficacy of it's mumps vaccine to monopolize sales. The most recent word is that a Federal district court judge has ruled the case should advance to a jury trial. But it's very difficult to find news about it in the mainstream media. I've never heard Brian Williams talk about it. I have to search blogsite articles to get updated detailed analyses. Apparently the mumps vaccine is only available in the controversial MMR injection. And the MMR vaccine has been a burning news topic due to the recent multi-state measles outbreak. So it's really weird that the mainstream media has been able to keep a lid on the lawsuit news. What else falls under the radar?
Wow, interesting stuff. I had not heard of this. Prompted by your post, I searched and found this article. Very curious to hear what others have to say. Thanks for posting!
Yes, that's the article, Dr. Dave.....and found at some obscure website that I came across by accident. Don't you think the mainstream media should be reporting this important legal development to our citizens in light of all the controversy over whether vaccines ought be mandatory for children as a condition of attending K-12? I read that the State of California wants to make a host of vaccines mandatory for young adults entering the UC system too. Apparently if one wants a formal education these days he must sacrifice his body to medicine (via the state) and consent to forced injections. I warned people about these draconian policies years ago. Most laughed at me. I bet the vaccine manufacturers are laughing too. All the way to the bank. The State says that woman own their bodies and have the right to choose. Apparently students don't. Very confusing.
I too am often sceptical of pharmacy companies' reports... depending on whether the findings benefit them or not. I believe it is absolutely essential that this data is transparent, many will not wish to read it but it should be available to those that wish to. I also think this will serve to save money as there will be no decisions or additional trials to question previously addressed beliefs. Very interesting article though, thanks for sharing. Jeff
Follow the money, folks. Follow the money. Use you common sense. If the authors of the study failed to deliver the message desired by the ones who paid them - how many companies would pay them to conduct future studies? This is not brain science.
Do you think a regulatory requirement to disclose all raw data would adequately address this concern? Thanks, all, for your comments!
I don't know, Doctor. In my experience if the regulators create a road block the ones with the money just find another way around it. It's the American way.
