vaccine research: financial conflict of interest is the norm, not the exception - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#1 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 06:13 AM - Thread Starter
 
Taximom5's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 3,110
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 28 Post(s)

This isn't really anything we need to debate, but I'm posting it here because it's something we all should know, whether we vaccinate according to the full schedule, on a select/delayed timetable, or not at all.  Please feel free to add other articles, if you find any.  I think that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

It's extremely important to know this, because most of us grew up believing that medical research (including vaccine research), as *SCIENCE,* is pure, untouched by corruption, and staffed only with selfless, brave souls who want to save humanity.  The industry itself feeds that myth. There are a lot of well-meaning people who have no idea how pervasive the corruption is, and who passionately defend the entire industry. 

 

The truth is very unsettling, to say the least.  My thanks to MDC member Turquesa for originally finding and posting this on another thread!

 

From 2010: http://www.thenation.com/article/big-pharma-bad-science#

"In June, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.

The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 from companies whose work they judge. Isn't that comforting?"

 

http://www.theoneclickgroup.co.uk/documents/vaccines/Conflicts%20of%20Interest%20in%20Vaccine%20Safety%20Research%2C%20Gayle%20DeLong.pdf

"Compounding the COls inherent in the business of manufacturing vaccines is the fact that vaccine manufacturers sponsor research. The influence of industry is widespread: It affects individuals as well as institutions and study outcomes as well as research initiatives. In a survey of faculty at top US medical research institutions (Tereskerz et al 2009) found over two-thirds of researchers (338 out of 506) received some support from industry."
 

Mirzam and applejuice like this.
Taximom5 is offline  
#2 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 06:55 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

Studies are more likely to be published in prestigious journal when they are industry funded.

 

"Conclusion Publication in prestigious journals is associated with partial or total industry funding, and this association is not explained by study quality or size"

 

http://www.nvic.org/Downloads/Jeffersonetal-BMJ2009.aspx

 

(the link is a download of the study)

 

So, even when non industry funded studies exist, we are unlikely to know about them or be able to access them - as industry related studies are the studies that get press.  

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#3 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 07:51 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

From the Independent (UK) today:

 

Drug Giants fined 11bn for Criminal Wrongdoing

 

Quote:
In all, 26 companies, including eight of the 10 top players in the global industry, have been found to be acting dishonestly. The scale of the wrongdoing, revealed for the first time, has undermined public and professional trust in the industry and is holding back clinical progress, according to two papers published in today's New England Journal of Medicine. Leading lawyers have warned that the multibillion-dollar fines are not enough to change the industry's behaviour.
applejuice likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#4 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 08:05 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)

Tweeted out by Dr Tenpenny today: 

 

Undue industry influences that distort healthcare research, strategy, expenditure and practice: a review. (pubmed)

RESULTS:We located abundance of consistent evidence demonstrating that the industry has created means to intervene in all steps of the processes that determine healthcare research, strategy, expenditure, practice and education. As a result of these interferences, the benefits of drugs and other products are often exaggerated and their potential harms are downplayed, and clinical guidelines, medical practice, and healthcare expenditure decisions are biased.

CONCLUSION:

To serve its interests, the industry masterfully influences evidence base production, evidence synthesis, understanding of harms issues, cost-effectiveness evaluations, clinical practice guidelines and healthcare professional education and also exerts direct influences on professional decisions and health consumers. There is an urgent need for regulation and other action towards redefining the mission of medicine towards a more objective and patient-, population- and society-benefit direction that is free from conflict of interests.


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#5 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 01:12 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post
 

This isn't really anything we need to debate, but I'm posting it here because it's something we all should know, whether we vaccinate according to the full schedule, on a select/delayed timetable, or not at all.  Please feel free to add other articles, if you find any.  I think that this is only the tip of the iceberg.

 

It's extremely important to know this, because most of us grew up believing that medical research (including vaccine research), as *SCIENCE,* is pure, untouched by corruption, and staffed only with selfless, brave souls who want to save humanity.  The industry itself feeds that myth. There are a lot of well-meaning people who have no idea how pervasive the corruption is, and who passionately defend the entire industry. 

 

The truth is very unsettling, to say the least.  My thanks to MDC member Turquesa for originally finding and posting this on another thread!

 

From 2010: http://www.thenation.com/article/big-pharma-bad-science#

"In June, the New England Journal of Medicine, one of the most respected medical journals, made a startling announcement. The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed.

The reason? The journal could no longer find enough independent experts. Drug company gifts and "consulting fees" are so pervasive that in any given field, you cannot find an expert who has not been paid off in some way by the industry. So the journal settled for a new standard: Their reviewers can have received no more than $10,000 from companies whose work they judge. Isn't that comforting?"

 

 

From the New England Journal of Medicine website : 

 

"

Financial Associations/Conflict of Interest

NEJM is committed to publishing the highest quality research and reliable, authoritative review articles that are free from commercial influence.

For all research articles we publish, NEJM lists study sponsorship and relevant financial information as disclosed by the authors. The disclosure forms of all authors are available online with the full text of each article. Additional information about the contributions of authors may also appear in the Methods section of research articles.

A separate policy applies to Review Articles and editorials, which comment on published articles but do not present new research. NEJM expects that authors of such articles not to have any significant financial interest in any biomedical company relevant to the topics and products discussed in the article. When a prospective author does have financial ties to disclose, the editors decide whether they are relevant to the topic and whether they are de minimus.

NEJM's policy is that none of the NEJM editors should have any financial relationship with any biomedical company.

For more information:

Integrity Safeguards 

Uniform Format for Disclosure of Competing Interests in ICMJE Journals (November 5, 2009)

Financial Associations of Authors (our current conflict of interest policy; June 13, 2002)

Full Disclosure and the Funding of Biomedical Research (April 24, 2008)  " 

 

http://www.nejm.org/page/about-nejm/editorial-policies

 

As was said in another thread, COI must be stated in the paper itself.  Anyone can easily choose to just ignore studies with a COI disclosed if they wish. There are still many many many studies available that don't have any ties to "big pharma". 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#6 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 01:34 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)

Also, the part you quoted says "The editors declared that they were dropping their policy stipulating that authors of review articles of medical studies could not have financial ties to drug companies whose medicines were being analyzed."

 

Review articles are different. Per the NEJM quote review articles " ... comment on published articles but do not present new research." 

 

http://www.nejm.org/page/about-nejm/editorial-policies

 

Another source " 

What’s a “Review Article?”

Not to be confused with a “peer reviewed journal,” Review articles are an attempt by one or more writers to sum up the current state of the research on a particular topic. Ideally, the writer searches foreverything relevant to the topic, and then sorts it all out into a coherent view of the “state of the art” as it now stands. " 

 

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/lsl/help/modules/review.html


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#7 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 02:25 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)

Sorry, to be more clear : A review article is not a research study.  It is an article that reviews all the current studies that exists to keep the reader updated on the current status of the literature.  So this has nothing to do with the authors of the STUDIES that are done.  It just has to do with those who are trying to bring the studies together into one article.


Those with SIGNIFICANT ties to drug companies still can't write even review articles.  What financial ties are allowed?  $10,000 or less over two years.  Since most researchers make on the order of $60,000 or more a YEAR, that's a rather small tie.

 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#8 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 03:05 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

"Most U.S. clinical trials are funded by industry. Opportunities exist for sponsors to influence research in ways that jeopardize research objectivity. The purpose of this study was to survey U.S. medical school faculty to assess financial arrangements between investigators and industry to learn about investigators' first hand knowledge of the effects of industry sponsorship on research. Here we show first-hand knowledge that compromises occurred in: research participants' well-being (9%), research initiatives (35%), publication of results (28%), interpretation of research data (25%), and scientific advancement (20%) because of industry support. Financial relationships with industry were prevalent and considered important to conducting respondents' research."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19353387

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#9 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 03:09 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

http://www.thenation.com/article/big-pharma-bad-science#

 

From the first link in the OP:

 

"The <NEJM> standard announced in June was only for the reviewers. The actual authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often bought and paid for by private drug companies with a stake in the scientific results. While the NEJM and some other journals disclose these conflicts, others do not. Unknown to many readers is the fact that the data being discussed was often collected and analyzed by the maker of the drug involved in the test. An independent 1996 study found that 98 percent of scientific papers based on research sponsored by corporations promoted the effectiveness of a company's drug. By comparison, 79 percent of independent studies found that a new drug was effective. "

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#10 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 03:24 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

"Most U.S. clinical trials are funded by industry. Opportunities exist for sponsors to influence research in ways that jeopardize research objectivity. The purpose of this study was to survey U.S. medical school faculty to assess financial arrangements between investigators and industry to learn about investigators' first hand knowledge of the effects of industry sponsorship on research. Here we show first-hand knowledge that compromises occurred in: research participants' well-being (9%), research initiatives (35%), publication of results (28%), interpretation of research data (25%), and scientific advancement (20%) because of industry support. Financial relationships with industry were prevalent and considered important to conducting respondents' research."

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19353387

 

Right. So the vast majority do not. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#11 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 03:33 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

http://www.thenation.com/article/big-pharma-bad-science#

 

From the first link in the OP:

 

"The <NEJM> standard announced in June was only for the reviewers. The actual authors of scientific studies in medical journals are often bought and paid for by private drug companies with a stake in the scientific results. While the NEJM and some other journals disclose these conflicts, others do not. Unknown to many readers is the fact that the data being discussed was often collected and analyzed by the maker of the drug involved in the test. An independent 1996 study found that 98 percent of scientific papers based on research sponsored by corporations promoted the effectiveness of a company's drug. By comparison, 79 percent of independent studies found that a new drug was effective. "

 

There was no source provided for this independent 1996 study that I saw. That is almost 18 years ago.  Again, in most respectable medical journals a COI must be disclosed. If you don't trust studies that have a COI, then don't use them in your determination. There are many many many studies on vaccines that do not have COIs that you can look at.

 

To argue that the only studies on vaccines have pharma ties is simply not true. I am not sure if that is your argument, but it seems to be because that point seems to still be attacked.  Because some vaccine studies have COI doesn't mean every study on vaccine safety is useless. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water. There are plenty that are pharma-tie free. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#12 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 03:35 PM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)

And they pick and chose which studies are published based on results.  So how many of these non-pharm studies actually make it anywhere as public knowledge?  Nowhere near as many as the pharm studies.  And when they do?  Pro-vaxxers bash them to no end and do everything they can to discredit the author or study.  Meanwhile when you pay someone to write a favorable article about studies having been done on your product that's not exactly convincing.....

Mirzam, applejuice and BeckyBird like this.
sassyfirechick is online now  
#13 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 06:22 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Right. So the vast majority do not. 

Wrong.  They said "most US clinical trials are industry funded."  

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#14 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 06:28 PM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Wrong.  They said "most US clinical trials are industry funded."  

 

Thats not what the results of the study showed. You do know how to do basic math right?  You can look at the percentages yourself. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#15 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 06:48 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

There was no source provided for this independent 1996 study that I saw. That is almost 18 years ago.  Again, in most respectable medical journals a COI must be disclosed. If you don't trust studies that have a COI, then don't use them in your determination. There are many many many studies on vaccines that do not have COIs that you can look at.

 

1996 was awhile ago.  I will see if I can dig up something more recent.  My point was that that this study showed that industry funded studies tended to come to more positive conclusions about their product than independent studies.  Re quoting:

 

"An independent 1996 study found that 98 percent of scientific papers based on research sponsored by corporations promoted the effectiveness of a company's drug. By comparison, 79 percent of independent studies found that a new drug was effective. "

 

To argue that the only studies on vaccines have pharma ties is simply not true. I am not sure if that is your argument, but it seems to be because that point seems to still be attacked.   I have never said that all studies have pharma ties.  You said the vast majority of studies were not tied to pharmaceutical companies,  I asked you for links supporting this, as it is contrary to what I have read.  From this thread alone:

 

 "In a survey of faculty at top US medical research institutions (Tereskerz et al 2009) found over two-thirds of researchers (338 out of 506) received some support from industry."  (post one)

 

"Most U.S. clinical trials are funded by industry…"  (post 8).

 

In any event, I am not really attacking the point.  I believe most studies have pharmaceutical ties, and you have shown me nothing that dissuades me from that viewpoint.  I have moved on.  I am now focusing on what are the repercussions of industry funding are. Both of the links I posted above discussed the negative consequences of industry funding. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#16 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 07:07 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Thats not what the results of the study showed. You do know how to do basic math right?  You can look at the percentages yourself. 

I think you need to reread the quote carefully.  The percentages are about how industry funded trials affect research.  The quote (below) does not specify the percentage of studies that are industry funded, all it says is "most."   

 

From what I quoted:

 

Most U.S. clinical trials are funded by industry. (That is clear, right? ) Opportunities exist for sponsors to influence research in ways that jeopardize research objectivity. The purpose of this study was to survey U.S. medical school faculty to assess financial arrangements between investigators and industry to learn about investigators' first hand knowledge of the effects of industry sponsorship on research. ( They want to study how industry sponsorship might affect research  )Here we show first-hand knowledge that compromises occurred in: research participants' well-being (9%), research initiatives (35%), publication of results (28%), interpretation of research data (25%), and scientific advancement (20%) because of industry support. Financial relationships with industry were prevalent and considered important to conducting respondents' research."

 

I did a little further digging beyond the abstract to see if they spelled out what they meant by "most" in terms of their study, and they did:

 

"Sixty-six percent of respondents indicated that they have received some form of industry support"  Males were more likely to have industry funding than females, and researchers with 11 plus years of experience were more likely than inexperienced researchers to have industry funding.  

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758529/


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#17 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 07:13 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

As 1996 was awhile ago….

 

From 2012 (Cochrane)

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23235689

 

"Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments."

applejuice and BeckyBird like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#18 of 38 Old 10-11-2013, 07:29 PM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
dbl post
applejuice likes this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#19 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 07:58 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

I think you need to reread the quote carefully.  The percentages are about how industry funded trials affect research.  The quote (below) does not specify the percentage of studies that are industry funded, all it says is "most."   

 

From what I quoted:

 

Most U.S. clinical trials are funded by industry. (That is clear, right? ) Opportunities exist for sponsors to influence research in ways that jeopardize research objectivity. The purpose of this study was to survey U.S. medical school faculty to assess financial arrangements between investigators and industry to learn about investigators' first hand knowledge of the effects of industry sponsorship on research. ( They want to study how industry sponsorship might affect research  )Here we show first-hand knowledge that compromises occurred in: research participants' well-being (9%), research initiatives (35%), publication of results (28%), interpretation of research data (25%), and scientific advancement (20%) because of industry support. Financial relationships with industry were prevalent and considered important to conducting respondents' research."

 

I did a little further digging beyond the abstract to see if they spelled out what they meant by "most" in terms of their study, and they did:

 

"Sixty-six percent of respondents indicated that they have received some form of industry support"  Males were more likely to have industry funding than females, and researchers with 11 plus years of experience were more likely than inexperienced researchers to have industry funding.  

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2758529/

 

If you look at the survey in Appendix A, you will see that the definition of "support" is very broad (it included gifts of $100 value). 
 
And what is the result of this supposed support?  As the study says, "Only 4% reported that a sponsor had ever asked them to withhold research results from publication, but 13% said they had been asked to delay publication of research results.  Nearly 8% have been asked by a sponsor to present research results in a way that favors the sponsor’s drug or product. About 7% have been asked by an industry sponsor to keep the research results secret."  
 

Once again, these results clearly tell us that even when you define "support" ridiculously broadly, it has virtually no effect on the research, as the largest percentage there is 13%.  Thus, even when you define support ridiculously broadly, 87% of those who received the support felt no pressure at all.


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#20 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 08:12 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

As 1996 was awhile ago….

 

From 2012 (Cochrane)

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23235689

 

"Sponsorship of drug and device studies by the manufacturing company leads to more favorable results and conclusions than sponsorship by other sources. Our analyses suggest the existence of an industry bias that cannot be explained by standard 'Risk of bias' assessments."

 

 The second study you linked supports my argument.  When the RR is 1, there is no effect.  When the RR is 2, that means the effect is twice as likely under the circumstance.  As an example, when measles outbreaks occur in a school, unvaccinated children are 22.2 times more likely to get measles than the vaccinated children (Feikin DR, et al. "Individual and Community Risks of Measles and Pertussis Associated with Person Exemptions to Immunization." JAMA, 2000; 284:3145-3150.)  Thus, the relative risk (RR) of getting measles when you are not vaccinated is 22.2. 
 

Now let's look at the study you linked.  It says "Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, risk ratio (RR): 1.24"  That means they were 24% more likely to have positive results if they were sponsored by industry.  That's a very low risk.  It means that for 100 industry-sponsored studies, only 24 have results skewed to support the industry.  Thus, the vast majority of studies, *even when they are industry sponsored*, aren't compromised.
   
Also, you need to think a bit more clearly about what this study actually means.  In the study, they compare industry-sponsored research to non-industry-sponsored research.  If the drug companies are so all-powerful that they control the medical studies, how did these authors find studies that were NOT industry-sponsored?  If the medical research shows that vaccines are safe and effective only because the industry sponsors the research, why doesn't the non-industry-sponsored research (which you admit exists by using this study) show that vaccines aren't safe and effective?


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#21 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 08:31 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

   
Also, you need to think a bit more clearly about what this study actually means.  In the study, they compare industry-sponsored research to non-industry-sponsored research.  If the drug companies are so all-powerful that they control the medical studies, how did these authors find studies that were NOT industry-sponsored?  If the medical research shows that vaccines are safe and effective only because the industry sponsors the research, why doesn't the non-industry-sponsored research (which you admit exists by using this study) show that vaccines aren't safe and effective?

 

They do.

 

http://www.greenmedinfo.com/guide/health-guide-vaccine-research

applejuice likes this.

Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#22 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 09:15 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

 
And what is the result of this supposed support?  As the study says, "Only 4% reported that a sponsor had ever asked them to withhold research results from publication, but 13% said they had been asked to delay publication of research results.  Nearly 8% have been asked by a sponsor to present research results in a way that favors the sponsor’s drug or product. About 7% have been asked by an industry sponsor to keep the research results secret."  
 

Once again, these results clearly tell us that even when you define "support" ridiculously broadly, it has virtually no effect on the research, as the largest percentage there is 13%. 

I consider 8% being asked to present research in a way that favors the sponsors drug or product very damning.  Ditto for 7% being asked to keep the research results secret.  If you don't think this is concerning...well, I am at a loss.  Have a nice day. 


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#23 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 09:20 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 
 

Now let's look at the study you linked.  It says "Industry sponsored studies more often had favorable efficacy results, risk ratio (RR): 1.24"  That means they were 24% more likely to have positive results if they were sponsored by industry.  That's a very low risk.  It means that for 100 industry-sponsored studies, only 24 have results skewed to support the industry.  Thus, the vast majority of studies, *even when they are industry sponsored*, aren't compromised.
 

Very low risk??? OMG you are funny.

 

Do you consider 24% of studies being more likely to have skewed results if they are industry funded acceptable? I don't..

Mirzam and applejuice like this.

There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#24 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 10:12 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Very low risk??? OMG you are funny.

 

Do you consider 24% of studies being more likely to have skewed results if they are industry funded acceptable? I don't..

  

Yes, it is relatively low risk.  The number is not 24 percent of all studies. It was 24 percent of industry funded studies. So a small percent of another small percent. 

 

For example, if we have 100 papers and, say, 20 percent are funded by pharma (just to make math easy) and 24 percent out of that number has inflated results then about 96 out of the 100 papers aren't going to have skewed results.   So it makes sense to look at the totality of evidence (again, there are thousands and thousands of studies on vaccine safety and efficacy) to come to the conclusion that they are safe.  It is illogical to look at that number and think "well 4 or 5 out of 100 studies may be biased so I guess we should just toss them all out." 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#25 of 38 Old 10-12-2013, 10:43 AM
 
sassyfirechick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

If you look at the survey in Appendix A, you will see that the definition of "support" is very broad (it included gifts of $100 value). 
 
And what is the result of this supposed support?  As the study says, "Only 4% reported that a sponsor had ever asked them to withhold research results from publication, but 13% said they had been asked to delay publication of research results.  Nearly 8% have been asked by a sponsor to present research results in a way that favors the sponsor’s drug or product. About 7% have been asked by an industry sponsor to keep the research results secret."  
 

Once again, these results clearly tell us that even when you define "support" ridiculously broadly, it has virtually no effect on the research, as the largest percentage there is 13%.  Thus, even when you define support ridiculously broadly, 87% of those who received the support felt no pressure at all.

No effect on research would be 0%.  Anything above 0 will have an effect, not matter how miniscule, it's an effect, lets no downplay that fact.  How many researchers were involved in this study and where did they come from?  It's like flipping a coin 50 times and getting 49 heads and 1 tail - it's not statistically as likely to occur, but it can because 50/50 is only an average.  So depending on how many people were in this study, those percentages might be far less or far greater in the larger scheme of things as you so often like to compare.  I don't consider 7% to be a inconsequential number at all, especially when the subject is about withholding vital information that could very well save lives.  We're not talking about 7% of researchers misspelling a chemical component here, we're talking about 7% blatantly ignoring a study that would be unfavorable to a drug for various reasons, but potentially including death - and that is somehow ok?  I don't understand where the divide becomes so set in stone that it's ok to have a certain number of deaths and devastating reactions from a drug or vaccine, but there is zero tolerance for the same consequences when they are at the hands of the wild disease.  Is it really ok to kill people for the sake of science but nature taking it's course it out of line?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

 

Yes, it is relatively low risk.  The number is not 24 percent of all studies. It was 24 percent of industry funded studies. So a small percent of another small percent.

 

For example, if we have 100 papers and, say, 20 percent are funded by pharma (just to make math easy) and 24 percent out of that number has inflated results then about 96 out of the 100 papers aren't going to have skewed results.   So it makes sense to look at the totality of evidence (again, there are thousands and thousands of studies on vaccine safety and efficacy) to come to the conclusion that they are safe.  It is illogical to look at that number and think "well 4 or 5 out of 100 studies may be biased so I guess we should just toss them all out."

And of those thousands and thousands of studies not a SINGLE ONE, EVER compares vaccines to placebos.  Not a single one compares individual components to multi component vaccinations, and not a single one has done long term studies on the health of those who've been fully vaxxed and boostered "according to schedule" throughout their lives when compared to the completely unvaxxed.  Until this happens, I don't give a damn how many times they compare one vax to another, or if 99.9% of all studies become non-pharm influenced.  Until there is 100% transparency, until there is 100% refusal of funding that could create biases, the system will never be safe and effective.  How can an industry expect compliance if they don't disclose the full picture.?

sassyfirechick is online now  
#26 of 38 Old 10-14-2013, 09:16 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyfirechick View Post
 

No effect on research would be 0%.  Anything above 0 will have an effect, not matter how miniscule, it's an effect, lets no downplay that fact.  How many researchers were involved in this study and where did they come from?  It's like flipping a coin 50 times and getting 49 heads and 1 tail - it's not statistically as likely to occur, but it can because 50/50 is only an average.  So depending on how many people were in this study, those percentages might be far less or far greater in the larger scheme of things as you so often like to compare.  I don't consider 7% to be a inconsequential number at all, especially when the subject is about withholding vital information that could very well save lives.  We're not talking about 7% of researchers misspelling a chemical component here, we're talking about 7% blatantly ignoring a study that would be unfavorable to a drug for various reasons, but potentially including death - and that is somehow ok?  I don't understand where the divide becomes so set in stone that it's ok to have a certain number of deaths and devastating reactions from a drug or vaccine, but there is zero tolerance for the same consequences when they are at the hands of the wild disease.  Is it really ok to kill people for the sake of science but nature taking it's course it out of line?

 

And of those thousands and thousands of studies not a SINGLE ONE, EVER compares vaccines to placebos.  Not a single one compares individual components to multi component vaccinations, and not a single one has done long term studies on the health of those who've been fully vaxxed and boostered "according to schedule" throughout their lives when compared to the completely unvaxxed.  Until this happens, I don't give a damn how many times they compare one vax to another, or if 99.9% of all studies become non-pharm influenced.  Until there is 100% transparency, until there is 100% refusal of funding that could create biases, the system will never be safe and effective.  How can an industry expect compliance if they don't disclose the full picture.?

 

Funny, you didn't seem to question the study when kathymuggle posted about it. You even "hugged" it.  Interesting...

 

"And of those thousands and thousands of studies not a SINGLE ONE, EVER compares vaccines to placebos." 

 

SBM had a response to this claim. "

1. Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

One trial? It took me 55 seconds to find  ”Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial” and that included time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms.  ’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’,  ’randomized’ and  ’placebo control trial’  results in 416 Pubmed references; add ‘safety’ to the search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one. " 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nine-questions-nine-answers/

"Not a single one compares individual components to multi component vaccinations, and not a single one has done long term studies on the health of those who've been fully vaxxed and boostered "according to schedule" throughout their lives when compared to the completely unvaxxed.  Until this happens, I don't give a damn how many times they compare one vax to another, or if 99.9% of all studies become non-pharm influenced.  Until there is 100% transparency, until there is 100% refusal of funding that could create biases, the system will never be safe and effective. "

Reminds me of this :

http://www.mothering.com/community/t/1390507/the-one-study-to-rule-them-all-and-why-it-would-never-work


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
#27 of 38 Old 10-14-2013, 09:41 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

Shall we have a meme-off? 

 

Still, I think Sassyfire goofed slightly in say there were not a single trial ever that compared vaccines to a placebo.  It is easy to disporove as "ever" is quite the word.  Oh, well.  Did you rub your hands in glee at the mild goof?  Sometimes I think posters just look for weaknesses in wording rather than focusing on the big topic.  Classic diversion.  

 

In any event, the major point is there are very, very, very few studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children in a double blind, placebo controlled study.


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#28 of 38 Old 10-14-2013, 10:13 AM
 
kathymuggle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3,930
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 119 Post(s)

I think this might be an interesting read for anyone concerned with vaccine, policies, COI, etc.  I have not read it yet:

 

http://www.ecomed.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/3-tomljenovic.pdf


There is a battle of two wolves inside us.  One is good and the other is evil.  The wolf that wins is the one you feed.

 

Book and herb loving mama to 1 preteen and 2 teens (when did that happen?).  We travel, go to school, homeschool, live rurally, eat our veggies, spend too much time...

kathymuggle is online now  
#29 of 38 Old 10-14-2013, 10:14 AM
 
Mirzam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Outside the hive mind
Posts: 7,305
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by teacozy View Post
 

Funny, you didn't seem to question the study when kathymuggle posted about it. You even "hugged" it.  Interesting...

 

"And of those thousands and thousands of studies not a SINGLE ONE, EVER compares vaccines to placebos." 

 

SBM had a response to this claim. "

1. Could you please provide one double-blind, placebo-controlled study that can prove the safety and effectiveness of vaccines?

One trial? It took me 55 seconds to find  ”Efficacy of 23-valent pneumococcal vaccine in preventing pneumonia and improving survival in nursing home residents: double blind, randomised and placebo controlled trial” and that included time to boot the browser and mis-spell the search terms.  ’Vaccine’, ‘efficacy’,  ’randomized’ and  ’placebo control trial’  results in 416 Pubmed references; add ‘safety’ to the search terms, you get 126 returns. 416 is easily more than one. " 

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/nine-questions-nine-answers/

 

 

Funny SBM didn't mention this placebo study which showed that the having the flu vaccine resulted in 5 and a half times more respiratory infections than the unvaccinated.

 

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/cid.cis307

 

Oh, and  his answer of a long term study of vaccines is hilarious! :laugh

 

Quote:
Long term is vague. What is long term?  Smallpox disappeared in 1977  thanks to the vaccine.  I have not seem a case of smallpox in my medical career, which now on it’s 31st year. No reported long term toxicities of the smallpox vaccine  and the eradication of smallpox appears to me to represent reasonable evidence for long term safety and effectiveness. 

 

WRONG! F


Rainbow.giftstillheart.gifsmile.gif

 

"If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings"~ Leonardo da Vinci

Mirzam is online now  
#30 of 38 Old 10-14-2013, 10:21 AM
 
teacozy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Hogwarts
Posts: 1,326
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 180 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kathymuggle View Post
 

Shall we have a meme-off? 

 

Still, I think Sassyfire goofed slightly in say there were not a single trial ever that compared vaccines to a placebo.  It is easy to disporove as "ever" is quite the word.  Oh, well.  Did you rub your hands in glee at the mild goof?  Sometimes I think posters just look for weaknesses in wording rather than focusing on the big topic.  Classic diversion.  

 

In any event, the major point is there are very, very, very few studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children in a double blind, placebo controlled study.

 

"Shall we have a meme-off? " 

I actually think a meme off thread would be a lot of fun.  Maybe I'm the only one....

 

"Oh, well.  Did you rub your hands in glee at the mild goof?  Sometimes I think posters just look for weaknesses in wording rather than focusing on the big topic.  Classic diversion.  "

 

HILARIOUSLY ironic statement coming from you.  I was attacked on the "vast majority" statement (in more than one thread, I might add).  Even when I said I could easily change it to "many many many studies" and the point would still stand people still harped on that statement.  Funny.  The original point was that many many many studies that show the safety and efficacy of vaccines are done by people without conflicts of interest or ties to big pharma.  So the logic that since big pharma can do unethical things= all studies on vaccines are garbage is ridiculous. 

 

"In any event, the major point is there are very, very, very few studies that compare unvaxxed children to vaxxed children in a double blind, placebo controlled study." 

 

Do you mean completely unvaccinated children? Then, of course there isn't . It couldn't be double blind by definition because you would have to go out and cherry pick unvaccinated children to be in the study.  Otherwise, parents would have to agree to risk that there was a 50% chance there child would be in the vaccinated or unvaccinated group if it was truly double blind. 

 

In any case, she said, in ALL CAPS I might add, that there were no studies that compared a vaccine to a placebo.  This is a debate forum and I posted a response to that.  As the SBM quote said, there were over 400 that came up on pubmed. 


“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.” ~ Neil deGrasse Tyson 
teacozy is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off