Do You Let Clinical Studies Influence Your Health Decisions?

by Heinz Gisel
(La Jolla, CA, USA)

When a product claims to be “Clinically Tested”, or based on “Clinical Studies” – are you more likely to buy it? The main stream media daily menus tout breakthrough health events and miraculous cures and discoveries – citing scientific studies.

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.

First off: who sponsored and financed the study? Studies usually deliver the results the sponsor wants, otherwise they never see daylight. 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.

Two: 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 and 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? Pharmaceutical companies have a dismal record in this category, they 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. 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 M.D. puts his name on a study it is credible, right? But the pharmaceutical industry is pursuing these doctors with lots of money and other favors. The venerable 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 J&J on medicines in children worth? Well, he obviously thought he owes J&J a favor, so he published a study in the AMA Journal, discrediting the natural herb St.John’s Wort, stating that the herb is useless in treating ADHD in children. But he used an inactive, oxidized form of the herb in the study. Nevertheless, the media reported the “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 supplements, they have a vested interest in sponsoring such studies and when we read about vitamins or minerals not being effective, we have to search for clues how the study was sponsored and conducted. 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.

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."

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. 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? 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 pharma studies are designed by the drug companies marketing departments. Moreover the pressure extends to the regulatory agency that should identify flaws in studies: In Nov. 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."

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, NYT March 19, 2009.

“Dept. of Health and Human Services Approves Fictitious Medical Device Review Board Led by a Dead Dog”; Mike Adams; March 30, 2009. NaturalNews.com

Lawmakers Question Whether FDA Knowingly Allowed Unsafe & Ineffective Medical Devices into U.S. Market. Committee on Energy and Commerce; Rep. John D. Dingell, Chairman. Nov. 17, 2008.

Related: http://www.vitalityconcepts.com/

With appreciation to: Law of attraction courses, how to apply The Law of attraction, law of attraction