The "Clinically Tested" Scams
An article that has been "clinically tested" and/or is endorsed by "scientific celebrities" must be safe and effective and warrants a higher price, right? The main stream media daily menus tout breakthrough health events and miraculous cures and discoveries - citing scientific studies. Some claims are outlandish and results' surprising. That's why the media is commonly dropping names of celebrities and high ranking university doctors to numb those who weigh such information critically - but also as a disclaimer to protect their networks.
If the products or methods alluded to are of any real or potential interest, you may want to check on the credibility of the information rendered and the underlying study cited.
The very first and most important piece of information is rarely ever mentioned by the media: who sponsored and financed the study? Studies usually deliver the results the sponsor wants, if the results are not what the sponsor expects, you'll most likely never see the result, these will be trashed or hidden from public view. So called "randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled" studies sound impressive to most people, but it still matters what financial interest spawned the study. For example, a multi-center Canadian Universities research study, published March 19, 2009 in "Gut Pathogens" concludes, that Probiotics may be effective in easing anxiety. In this case, it was properly disclosed that Yakult, a Japanese producer of probiotic consumer products was behind the study. However, oftentimes such references are absent or hidden in footnotes of participating researchers biography - hoping that you will not take the time to research every participants industry affiliations. The National Institute of Health, NIH froze payments on a research grant to Emory University after it learned that the scientist in charge of the studies had concealed $ 2.8 million he received from GlaxoSmithKline. A recent study carried by the mainstream media touted that sugary soft drinks are not the reason for Childhood Obesity, but the consumer had to do some research to find that the "study" was sponsored by the American Beverage Association.
The next question is: what was the goal of the study before it began and is the outcome in line with the stated goal? It is generally accepted that for a clinical trial to be effective, a study's endpoint must be set at its beginning and remain unchanged. However, some drug companies are on record to have retroactively changed the intended outcome of studies in order to conceal safety issues. Merck, in a joint venture with Schering-Plough completed a study on its Vytorin drug in April 2006, but it didn't like the results, so it tried for 20 months to retro-actively alter the design of the study after the fact. But that "cherry-picking" attempt outraged the medical community, so Merck just delayed the release of the study until the pressure to release it could no longer be resisted. Finally, on January 14, 2008, the companies admitted that the drug doesn't work to their expectation. But the drug was approved by the FDA in 2004, so the revenue was streaming during all the time of procrastination.
Next: who were the scientists named in the study; did they follow through from beginning to the conclusion? Particularly pharmaceutical companies have a dismal record in this category, they tend to replace scientists that don't "perform" according to their expected outcome. The New England Journal of Medicine found that more than 30% of studies conducted on antidepressant drugs go unpublished because the outcome is not favorable for the drug company. The Journal examined 74 studies over 23 years and only 38 of these studies produced positive results for the drugs being tested. Of the 14 studies with unfavorable results that were published, 11 appeared to portray the drugs more effective than they actually were. AstraZeneca "buried" unfavorable studies on its anti-psychotic drug Seroquel, because it showed that it can cause diabetes. Seroquel generated $ 4.45 billion in revenue for AstraZeneca in 2008.
When a celebrity medical doctor puts his name on a study it is credible, right? At least that is what the media wants you to believe. But the pharmaceutical industry is pursuing these doctors fervently - and with lots of money and other favors. One well respected individual, Dr. Scott S. Reuben turned out to be a fraudster for at least 13 years during which he fabricated data published in 21 medical journal articles. The beneficiary companies of his fabricated findings included Pfizer and products mentioned in his articles included Celebrex, Lyrica and others. Harvard University's Psychiatric Researcher Dr. Joseph Biederman received some $ 1.6 million from drug companies, but lied about it, while he spearheaded a 4000% increase in pediatric bipolar disorder and put a countless number of children on anti-psychotic drugs. So what are his studies for Johnson & Johnson on medicines in children worth? Well, he obviously thought he owes J & J a favor, so he published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, discrediting the natural herb St. John's Wort, stating that the herb is useless in treating ADHD in children. However, he used an inactive, oxidized form of the herb in the study. Nevertheless, the mainstream media reported the doctored "study" with headlines like: "St. John's Wort No Help in ADHD" (Time, ABC News, Reuters). Since drug companies don't want you to take any natural dietary or herbal supplements, they have a vested interest in sponsoring such studies and every time we read about vitamins or minerals not being effective, we have to search for clues how the study was sponsored and conducted. For instance, a recent study proving Vitamin E ineffective and other citing Antioxidants (Vitamin C, E and Selenium) having no effect, used forms of vitamins that are not being used in humans in one case, and no vitamins were used at all in the other study. But of course these facts are never reported in the media and you have to do the sleuthing yourself.
US Elite University studies, such as Harvard or Emory are credible, right? Well, the Harvard Medical students publicly complained about the faculties ties to drug companies: "Harvard should be embarrassed by the F grade it recently received from the American Medical Student Association, a national group that rates how well medical schools monitor and control drug industry money." On April 9, 2009, The Boston Globe reported: "Dr. Robert B. Fogel, who taught at Harvard Medical School and practiced at Brigham and Women's Hospital until 2004, said he altered numbers and invented anatomic details reported in an article about obesity and sleep apnea. The journal Sleep retracted the article in February and the federal Office of Research Integrity concluded its investigation last month."
The FDA warrants the authenticity of studies and is protecting you, right? Not at all, the FDA has a long record of corruption and industry ties; it protects big industry not the consumer. You can read more on this topic on line at StopFDACensorship.org, but here is just one recent example: The US Government Accountability Office, GAO, in a recent sting operation, was able to set up a completely fictitious medical product approval review board, using names that were obviously false, like "Truper Dawg" and "April Phuls", which happened to be diseased pet dog names. In addition, the GAO invented a non existing medical product name to be investigated, which as approved by the Independent Review Board. In the case of drugs, the FDA is almost always ruling in favor of the drug companies. The Vytorin study which began in 2002 found that Vytorin worked no better to reduce clogged arteries than a high dose of a less-expensive, generically available statin alone. In fact, some of the Vytorin patients in that study actually developed more arterial plaque than those taking Zocor alone, putting them at an even greater risk of heart attacks and strokes. In spite of the fact that the Vytorin study found that Vytorin was no more effective than a high dose of generically-available Zocor, the FDA said it was not advising healthcare professionals to stop prescribing the drug.
Now, are the above examples just isolated cases and the majority of clinical studies are credible? Is there any 100 percent objective studies conducted? Highly unlikely! The fact is that practically all studies are financed directly or indirectly either by Wall Street or a government institution. In all cases the scientists find themselves in an ethical quandary, serving their career goals and swing the data in favor of the expected outcome, or follow their inner voice and ignore the pressure that's upon them. This pressure is severe when pharmaceutical studies are designed by the drug companies marketing departments. Moreover the pressure extends to the regulatory agency that should identify inconsistencies and flaws in studies: In November 2008, a group of FDA scientists wrote a letter to the House of Representatives "The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scientific review process for medical devices at the FDA has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk,"..."Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid."
In conclusion, we can safely assume that media and product claims like "clinically tested", or "proven in clinical studies" are nothing more than marketing hype, unless you can drill down deep enough into the study to satisfy your own need and expectation of the clinical results. But in no way should you take guidance in health related decisions based on unverified "clinically tested" claims.
References:
"NIH Freezes Grants to Emory in Secret Drug Money Scandal"; David Gutierrez; April 16, 2009; NaturalNews.com
IN FOODTURE WE TRUST"; Heinz Gisel; Xulon Press, March 2009. ISBN 978-1607912651
Drug Companies Routinely Bury Studies Showing Their Drugs Don't Work"; Mike Adams; August 20, 2008. NaturalNews.com
AstraZeneca Seroquel Studies 'Buried', Papers Show"; Jef Feeley, Margaret Cronin Fisk; February 27, Bloomberg
Key dates in Vytorin controversy"; Edward Tobin, Ransdell Pierson; March 30, 2008; Reuters
FDA issues Vytorin Early Communication";Jan. 25, 2008; Parker Waichman Alonso, LLP.
Drug Maker Told Studies Would Aid It, Papers Say"; Gardiner Harris, New York Times; March 19, 2009.
Harvard Medical School in Ethics Quandary"; Duff Wilson; New York Times, March 2, 2009.
Doctor's Pain Studies Were Fabricated, Hospital Says"; Gardiner Harris; New York Times, March 10, 2009.
"Department of health and Human Services Approves Fictitious Medical Device Review Board Led by a Dead Dog"; Mike Adams; March 30, 2009. NaturalNews.com
Dingell, Stupak to Investigate FDA's Medical Device Approval Process; Lawmakers Question Whether FDA Knowingly Allowed Unsafe & Ineffective Medical Devices into U.S. Market. Committee on Energy and Commerce; Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman. November 17, 2008.
Related Reading: http://www.vitalityconcepts.com/
If the products or methods alluded to are of any real or potential interest, you may want to check on the credibility of the information rendered and the underlying study cited.
The very first and most important piece of information is rarely ever mentioned by the media: who sponsored and financed the study? Studies usually deliver the results the sponsor wants, if the results are not what the sponsor expects, you'll most likely never see the result, these will be trashed or hidden from public view. So called "randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled" studies sound impressive to most people, but it still matters what financial interest spawned the study. For example, a multi-center Canadian Universities research study, published March 19, 2009 in "Gut Pathogens" concludes, that Probiotics may be effective in easing anxiety. In this case, it was properly disclosed that Yakult, a Japanese producer of probiotic consumer products was behind the study. However, oftentimes such references are absent or hidden in footnotes of participating researchers biography - hoping that you will not take the time to research every participants industry affiliations. The National Institute of Health, NIH froze payments on a research grant to Emory University after it learned that the scientist in charge of the studies had concealed $ 2.8 million he received from GlaxoSmithKline. A recent study carried by the mainstream media touted that sugary soft drinks are not the reason for Childhood Obesity, but the consumer had to do some research to find that the "study" was sponsored by the American Beverage Association.
The next question is: what was the goal of the study before it began and is the outcome in line with the stated goal? It is generally accepted that for a clinical trial to be effective, a study's endpoint must be set at its beginning and remain unchanged. However, some drug companies are on record to have retroactively changed the intended outcome of studies in order to conceal safety issues. Merck, in a joint venture with Schering-Plough completed a study on its Vytorin drug in April 2006, but it didn't like the results, so it tried for 20 months to retro-actively alter the design of the study after the fact. But that "cherry-picking" attempt outraged the medical community, so Merck just delayed the release of the study until the pressure to release it could no longer be resisted. Finally, on January 14, 2008, the companies admitted that the drug doesn't work to their expectation. But the drug was approved by the FDA in 2004, so the revenue was streaming during all the time of procrastination.
Next: who were the scientists named in the study; did they follow through from beginning to the conclusion? Particularly pharmaceutical companies have a dismal record in this category, they tend to replace scientists that don't "perform" according to their expected outcome. The New England Journal of Medicine found that more than 30% of studies conducted on antidepressant drugs go unpublished because the outcome is not favorable for the drug company. The Journal examined 74 studies over 23 years and only 38 of these studies produced positive results for the drugs being tested. Of the 14 studies with unfavorable results that were published, 11 appeared to portray the drugs more effective than they actually were. AstraZeneca "buried" unfavorable studies on its anti-psychotic drug Seroquel, because it showed that it can cause diabetes. Seroquel generated $ 4.45 billion in revenue for AstraZeneca in 2008.
When a celebrity medical doctor puts his name on a study it is credible, right? At least that is what the media wants you to believe. But the pharmaceutical industry is pursuing these doctors fervently - and with lots of money and other favors. One well respected individual, Dr. Scott S. Reuben turned out to be a fraudster for at least 13 years during which he fabricated data published in 21 medical journal articles. The beneficiary companies of his fabricated findings included Pfizer and products mentioned in his articles included Celebrex, Lyrica and others. Harvard University's Psychiatric Researcher Dr. Joseph Biederman received some $ 1.6 million from drug companies, but lied about it, while he spearheaded a 4000% increase in pediatric bipolar disorder and put a countless number of children on anti-psychotic drugs. So what are his studies for Johnson & Johnson on medicines in children worth? Well, he obviously thought he owes J & J a favor, so he published a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, discrediting the natural herb St. John's Wort, stating that the herb is useless in treating ADHD in children. However, he used an inactive, oxidized form of the herb in the study. Nevertheless, the mainstream media reported the doctored "study" with headlines like: "St. John's Wort No Help in ADHD" (Time, ABC News, Reuters). Since drug companies don't want you to take any natural dietary or herbal supplements, they have a vested interest in sponsoring such studies and every time we read about vitamins or minerals not being effective, we have to search for clues how the study was sponsored and conducted. For instance, a recent study proving Vitamin E ineffective and other citing Antioxidants (Vitamin C, E and Selenium) having no effect, used forms of vitamins that are not being used in humans in one case, and no vitamins were used at all in the other study. But of course these facts are never reported in the media and you have to do the sleuthing yourself.
US Elite University studies, such as Harvard or Emory are credible, right? Well, the Harvard Medical students publicly complained about the faculties ties to drug companies: "Harvard should be embarrassed by the F grade it recently received from the American Medical Student Association, a national group that rates how well medical schools monitor and control drug industry money." On April 9, 2009, The Boston Globe reported: "Dr. Robert B. Fogel, who taught at Harvard Medical School and practiced at Brigham and Women's Hospital until 2004, said he altered numbers and invented anatomic details reported in an article about obesity and sleep apnea. The journal Sleep retracted the article in February and the federal Office of Research Integrity concluded its investigation last month."
The FDA warrants the authenticity of studies and is protecting you, right? Not at all, the FDA has a long record of corruption and industry ties; it protects big industry not the consumer. You can read more on this topic on line at StopFDACensorship.org, but here is just one recent example: The US Government Accountability Office, GAO, in a recent sting operation, was able to set up a completely fictitious medical product approval review board, using names that were obviously false, like "Truper Dawg" and "April Phuls", which happened to be diseased pet dog names. In addition, the GAO invented a non existing medical product name to be investigated, which as approved by the Independent Review Board. In the case of drugs, the FDA is almost always ruling in favor of the drug companies. The Vytorin study which began in 2002 found that Vytorin worked no better to reduce clogged arteries than a high dose of a less-expensive, generically available statin alone. In fact, some of the Vytorin patients in that study actually developed more arterial plaque than those taking Zocor alone, putting them at an even greater risk of heart attacks and strokes. In spite of the fact that the Vytorin study found that Vytorin was no more effective than a high dose of generically-available Zocor, the FDA said it was not advising healthcare professionals to stop prescribing the drug.
Now, are the above examples just isolated cases and the majority of clinical studies are credible? Is there any 100 percent objective studies conducted? Highly unlikely! The fact is that practically all studies are financed directly or indirectly either by Wall Street or a government institution. In all cases the scientists find themselves in an ethical quandary, serving their career goals and swing the data in favor of the expected outcome, or follow their inner voice and ignore the pressure that's upon them. This pressure is severe when pharmaceutical studies are designed by the drug companies marketing departments. Moreover the pressure extends to the regulatory agency that should identify inconsistencies and flaws in studies: In November 2008, a group of FDA scientists wrote a letter to the House of Representatives "The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the scientific review process for medical devices at the FDA has been corrupted and distorted by current FDA managers, thereby placing the American people at risk,"..."Managers have ordered, intimidated and coerced FDA experts to modify scientific evaluations, conclusions and recommendations in violation of the laws, rules and regulations, and to accept clinical and technical data that is not scientifically valid."
In conclusion, we can safely assume that media and product claims like "clinically tested", or "proven in clinical studies" are nothing more than marketing hype, unless you can drill down deep enough into the study to satisfy your own need and expectation of the clinical results. But in no way should you take guidance in health related decisions based on unverified "clinically tested" claims.
References:
"NIH Freezes Grants to Emory in Secret Drug Money Scandal"; David Gutierrez; April 16, 2009; NaturalNews.com
IN FOODTURE WE TRUST"; Heinz Gisel; Xulon Press, March 2009. ISBN 978-1607912651
Drug Companies Routinely Bury Studies Showing Their Drugs Don't Work"; Mike Adams; August 20, 2008. NaturalNews.com
AstraZeneca Seroquel Studies 'Buried', Papers Show"; Jef Feeley, Margaret Cronin Fisk; February 27, Bloomberg
Key dates in Vytorin controversy"; Edward Tobin, Ransdell Pierson; March 30, 2008; Reuters
FDA issues Vytorin Early Communication";Jan. 25, 2008; Parker Waichman Alonso, LLP.
Drug Maker Told Studies Would Aid It, Papers Say"; Gardiner Harris, New York Times; March 19, 2009.
Harvard Medical School in Ethics Quandary"; Duff Wilson; New York Times, March 2, 2009.
Doctor's Pain Studies Were Fabricated, Hospital Says"; Gardiner Harris; New York Times, March 10, 2009.
"Department of health and Human Services Approves Fictitious Medical Device Review Board Led by a Dead Dog"; Mike Adams; March 30, 2009. NaturalNews.com
Dingell, Stupak to Investigate FDA's Medical Device Approval Process; Lawmakers Question Whether FDA Knowingly Allowed Unsafe & Ineffective Medical Devices into U.S. Market. Committee on Energy and Commerce; Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman. November 17, 2008.
Related Reading: http://www.vitalityconcepts.com/
Source...