Studies Funded by Drug Companies Favor Drugs

Discuss autism theories, media stories, and efforts to put ASD on the government agenda here.

Moderator: ModeratorBill

Forum rules
Please limit quotes from articles to five paragraphs. Also, researchers may post study information here.
Posts: 5241
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:51 pm

Studies Funded by Drug Companies Favor Drugs

Postby dgdavis64 » Sat Jun 10, 2006 9:40 am

Wisdom from

Studies Funded by Drug Companies Favor Drugs 80 Percent of the Time

Studies published in psychiatric journals are increasingly funded by drug companies, and the results of these studies often favor drugs. In 1992, only 25 percent of published studies were funded by drug companies, however, in 2002 this amount had risen to 57 percent.

Researchers from the Beth Israel Medical Center in New York City examined four journals: American Journal of Psychiatry, Archives of General Psychiatry, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology. They found drugs were favored in roughly:

# Eight out of 10 studies funded by the company that makes the drug.

# Five out of 10 studies not funded by industry.

# Three out of 10 studies conducted by competitors of the drug's maker.

The researchers pointed out that, since increasing numbers of studies are funded by drug companies, journals may be reluctant to publish studies with negative or inconclusive findings.

Further, while a database was set up by the pharmaceutical industry in October 2004 to report study results, both negative and positive, posting negative study results is completely voluntary.

USA Today May 24, 2006

Dr. Mercola's Comment:

Earlier this year the New York Times ran an absolutely outstanding article that carefully documented how an Italian researcher had clearly demonstrated a cancer link to NutraSweet.

Part of the story also included an amazing illustration as to what is wrong with industry-funded research.

A professor of psychiatry, Dr. Walton, analyzed 166 articles published about NutraSweet in medical journals from 1980 to 1985. He found that all 74 studies that were financed by the industry attested to the sweetener's safety.

Interestingly, there were 92 independently funded articles, and 84 identified adverse health effects with NutraSweet.

So of the 166 studies reviewed, 100 percent of the studies that were funded by industry found no problem and 91 percent of independent studies found a problem.

I have never seen a more remarkable demonstration of the power of the corruption of funding on research. Please note that this is not a handful of studies but 166 studies published over a five-year period.

Many of the controversial health issues you hear on the media don't even come close to this large amount of studies. So please be careful when you hear studies cited on the news to support using a drug for a chronic illness.

Just remember, drugs were never the right answer for these problems and in your and my lifetime never will be the right solution. There is usually some funding by a large multi-national drug corporation that has financed the delusion to convince you to give up more of your hard-earned salary to transfer even more wealth to their empire.

For the last nine years I have been using this newsletter to help clear up the deception and mind-control techniques these companies are using on you.

In the very near future this Web site will transition to a community-based forum and you won't be just hearing from me anymore. I am currently alpha testing our new Web site and you will just love it.

It is somewhat like Amazon book reviews on steroids and will allow the site to collect the wisdom of natural health care alternatives to the fatally flawed conventional medical paradigm. Keep posted as it will likely be introduced before the fall.

Related Articles:

How Could Drug Companies be so Evil?

Major Drug Company Illegally Pushes Off-Label Drug Use

Medical Journals Aim to Curtail Drug Companies' Influence

Beware of the pharma trollbot shills posting from anonymous proxy servers

Posts: 4227
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:48 pm

Postby Winnie » Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:15 am

The USA today article used in the Mercola spin above also stated the following, but I didn't see it mentioned in the spin: ... dies_x.htm

The findings don't prove the companies are knowingly biasing studies, says co-author Robert Kelly Jr., also with Beth Israel. The report didn't look at the evidence for bias in design of the studies

I've noticed that much of your anti-pharma info comes from alt med internet sales sites such as the mercola one:

Is it just possible the the anti-pharma sentiment is good for their sales? These sites profit from your distrust of traditional medicine. How many "studies" have they funded, and if they did, wouldn't these be biased as well?

Here is a question that I never see answered on these sites -- what are the annual sales figures for alt med products, nutritional supplements, and other "natural" health products? What testing for safety and effectiveness is performed on these? (The answer is none).

If you get your information from from opinion pieces on these sales sites instead of tracking the original source of studies, could this be a source of bias or "thought control?"

And lastly, what is the purpose for posting this article? Are you concerned that parents of children with autism are pumping their children full of drugs, or are you still trying to "prove" a conspiracy?

The point is well-taken that more independent research could only be a good thing, however. But I still say sources matter.
"Make it a powerful memory, the happiest you can remember."

Posts: 941
Joined: Tue Dec 20, 2005 12:33 pm

Gramma kills

Postby srinath » Sat Jun 10, 2006 10:25 am

Wowee ... 100% of "grammer kills" support Pharma ...
Now let me see how nutrasweet studies can be explained by alternative medicine sites doing research ...

Return to “Autism Articles, Studies & Politics”