After all the talk about Senate bill 4090 re Supplements, those of us who do not trust the FDA/CDC/NIH to define "the science" (especially when they redefined the word "vaccine" after that didnt work like they thought), I had to chuckle at this article I got today from Dr Greger. While the topic is not PC related (but is interesting), it reminds us of the reality of influence of $$ and politics on what science is or is not. Here is the main paragraph that I found interesting:
“The story began in 2009 when [drug company] Boehringer Ingelheim first applied for approval of flibanserin, a failed antidepressant, to treat hypoactive sexual desire disorder in premenopausal women.” There was a problem, though. It didn’t work. The application was resubmitted after more study and was rejected again, as was the appeal. But, in 2015, the FDA approved the drug. “What changed? Nothing about efficacy. The resubmission included no new benefit data.” The drug didn’t work any better. What changed is that the company that bought the drug “helped launch a new advocacy group, Even the Score.” The fake grassroots group lobbied “journalists, women’s groups, Congress, and the FDA” for approval, employing “the feminism argument to push for…approval on grounds of equality (men have their drugs; we want ours), when feminism in in fact a reason to object to flibanserin. How can it be feminist for doctors to tell women what’s normal and prescribe pills to control their sexual desire?” But, “within 48 hours of FDA approval, flibanserin was sold…for about $1 billion in cash. Very satisfying.” Very satisfying for the drug company, “but what about the women who take flibanserin,” now sold as Addyi? Not much. The drug just doesn’t work as advertised.
It may stimulate monkeys to groom each other more, but when researchers dug up the unpublished data about the drug, any clinical benefit was found to be “marginal, with statistically and clinically significant adverse [side] effects.” Indeed, “besides being ineffective in many women, flibanserin is a dangerous drug.” Combining it with alcohol “can cause dangerous hypotension and syncope [fainting]—problems so serious that the FDA put a black box warning, its most serious safety alert, on the label,” which, unfortunately, hardly anyone reads. In fact, “even without alcohol, flibanserin can cause severe drops in blood pressure levels and sudden prolonged unconsciousness.” Now, these types of serious side effects “might be acceptable in a cancer drug, but they are entirely unacceptable in a drug given to healthy women for an invented condition.”
Always has been, and will continue to be, all about the money. If people are helped, great, if not, great. Welcome to the real world.
Science is not defined by the FDA, NIH or anyone else. Unlike you, they respect science. Most of us owe our lives to that respect. You may live longer if you do.
In general, not disagreeing with you. So, what was the science they respected in going from multiple denials to approval only after the "woke" campaign funded by a drug company? As stated, "the resubmission included no new benefit data.”? Answer: The science of political pressure and big money.
If anyone needs more evidence of "Corrupt Science" simply reference the Climate Change Nuts. How easily they forget that "by 2007 Most of Florida will be under water, as will downtown Manhattan"
“Climate Change Nuts” are not representative of the real science community. Who is the the source of your quote, “by 2007 Most of Florida will be under water, as will downtown Manhattan"?
That is NOT a reason for confidence the process is working! It is a reason for the exact OPPOSITE. Strange concept of reason. And strange concept of science which is far more complex and nuanced as you continually suggest. Its history tells us that with very high degree of confidence.
You have evidence for x but conclude not x! Abuses are abuses whether in science or elsewhere. Abuses are far worse than falsifications and are not "self correcting".
I spent a few years with a young lady in the 70's. When I first met her, she was a salesperson for a drug company. She was highly intelligent but also got the job and prospered in it because of personality and looks. A route with doctors to visit and promote the company's new products and leave a generous amount of free samples.
A friend who was an athletic, fit man was prescribed one of the early fluoroquinolone drugs for an autumn cold. The side effects were horrific. His vision was so affected that even with coke bottle glasses he was unable to drive. He had neuropathy in both hands.
An uncle that had heart issues was told by his doctor that there was a new medicine, that was promising, however, it had a drawback. It had the possibility of also killing one. He refused the drug. several months later my uncle told me he had seen a segment on an investigative news program that was about the drug. The drug company manufacturing the drug offered trips to Italy to doctors that sold X amount of that drug. It has been taken off the market.
I worked in pharmaceuticals. I oversaw a manufacturing crew including and training. I interviewed job applicants. I headed a group in The Central Safety Committee known as Rules and Procedures. The members in the group were from quality control, engineering, research and development, quality assurance and I was in manufacturing of course. The group was tasked with writing new standard operating procedures and updating old ones. Eventually, as the company expanded, my job was to work with contracting crews, installing new equipment trains, reactors, centrifuges, dryers and storage tanks and transfer lines in the tank farm. I have also worked with former employees of some of the giants in the pharma industry. I interviewed these people when they applied for employment and contributed to their training. Many worked for me. When I ran a shift, I was assigned new engineers to train.
I likely have more experience in pharma than anyone on here. Not only my experiences, but word of mouth from those who were hired from some of the large pharma companies.
When someone receives a diagnosis such as we have received, there is no dispute that at that time, we are vulnerable and if we are going to make a poor decision, the odds increase that it will be then. We may put too much faith in a doctor and/or what the doctor prescribes and uses.
I have irreversible damage from the repeated use of fluoroquinolones during biopsy procedures. Oral Cipro combined with a, as one of the nurses said when I asked, "A humongous syringe of Levaquin". Administered with the long needle for intramuscular injections.
Talking and messaging with others that have had biopsy and other procedures requiring an antibiotic to prevent sepsis the drugs Rocephin and Cefdinir have been prescribed for them without ill effects. The FDA was slow--to acknowledge the dangers that the fluoroquinolone drugs present including aortic aneurysms. These drugs have left a trail of broken bodies and even deaths behind them.
Our benevolent people serving in DC? How many have served in some capacity and left office or employment poorer than when they began? I have seen and been in chemical and pharma manufacturing facilities from Alabama to the northeast. These companies have monies to manipulate others. Lawyers, guns and money? Well, omit the guns.
The "exceptions" are not that rare as some would have us to believe.
New Prescription Drugs: A Major Health Risk With Few …
The risk of serious adverse reactions occurring after approval increases from 1 in 5, to 1 in 3 — a huge risk that nobody is telling the public about. In response to drug disasters like Vioxx, which experts say caused about 120,000 traumatic cardiovascular events and 40,000 deaths, Congress and the FDA have set up monitoring and safety systems.
"About 128,000 people die from drugs prescribed to them. This makes prescription drugs a major health risk, ranking 4th with stroke as a leading cause of death."
Harvard's ethics department has some strong credibility.
Oddly, I have never heard of anyone dying from taking a gram of vitamin C or a multi-vitamin.
Then of course there are flawed studies that are strongly supported by some.
In this study by Harvard the flawed Brasky Study on fish oil wasn't even mentioned or considered among the Harvard researchers. Old news that the media sensationalized and sucked some in. Note the date of the article when the study was completed.
In major meta-analysis of clinical trials, omega-3 fish oil …
Sep 30, 2019 · Boston, MA – People who received omega-3 fish oil supplements in randomized clinical trials had lower risks of heart attack and other cardiovascular disease (CVD) events
Excerpts:
"The findings showed that people who took daily omega-3 fish oil supplements, compared with those who took a placebo, lowered their risk for most CVD outcomes except stroke, including an 8% reduced risk for heart attack and coronary heart disease (CHD) death. The association was particularly evident at higher doses of omega-3 fish oil supplementation. This finding may suggest that marine omega-3 supplementation dosage above the 840 mg/day used in most randomized clinical trials may provide greater reductions in CVD risk. Given that several million people experience these CVD events worldwide each year, even small reductions in risk can translate into hundreds of thousands of heart attacks and CVD deaths avoided, according to the researchers."
"Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health brings together dedicated experts from many disciplines to educate new generations of global health leaders and produce powerful ideas that improve the lives and health of people everywhere. As a community of leading scientists, educators, and students, we work together to take innovative ideas from the laboratory to people’s lives—not only making scientific breakthroughs, but also working to change individual behaviors, public policies, and health care practices. Each year, more than 400 faculty members at Harvard Chan School teach 1,000-plus full-time students from around the world and train thousands more through online and executive education courses. Founded in 1913 as the Harvard-MIT School of Health Officers, the School is recognized as America’s oldest professional training program in public health."
Anecdotal, but significant. When I embalmed bodies at a busy funeral home the funeral director that owned the home told me that the town had a rather large Swedish/American population. Many Swedes had settled in the town for fishing and farming many years ago. He told me that I would see that Swedes would enjoy longevity as they tended to eat fish frequently. That was his observation over the decades. The Swedes, good people, one of my cousins married one of Swedes, usually died because they "wore out". This man had embalmed thousands of bodies as he did, "trade work" to acquire the funding to buy his business. Trade work is simply an agreement to be on call for other funeral homes that may need an embalmer at times or even stepping in to direct a funeral or two when another owner is on vacation, ill or attending a family function.
Another little anecdote connected to the above story. The removal company's personnel brought in the body of an elderly woman early one afternoon. She was one of the Swedish population in town. One of the daughters of the funeral director had the story --the sweet little woman had lived alone in her home until the previous year. She had recently celebrated her 105th birthday! She had mobility challenges now. The morning she died she greeted the nurses and aides with a smile telling them that she had decided to die --on that very day. She was well loved by a large family of many generations. One of her great granddaughters worked at the local hardware store. I knew her as I bought some things for this and that. A week or so after the funeral I was in the hardware store and we said our hellos to each other. I suggested she should begin saving for her retirement. She gave a little chuckle and told me that she had already started.
Stay well my friends and enjoy each day as much as possible! It would be nice if we all make a decision after a life well lived when the candles count in the triple digits!
Science is just as corruptible as anything, especially once mixed with politics! Contemporary times is a great example and revelation as to the dangers of political influence in regard to so called science, especially when used as the "go to" in order to effectuate policy or ideologies! This gets more cooked once money is involved, with little doubt! I gave an example in the other thread, that of Radiating Meat for safety reasons, not that this method is bad, but just how the FDA buckled to industry pressure die to marketability, or the lack thereof the process and labeling requirements. Another great example is Olestra! That one is a hoot too! We could deep dive into the recent worldwide Covid situation and the ridiculous contradictory policies enacted by various municipalities based upon cherry picked science that supported a preferred agenda, either side, not picking one, just highlighting the fact that science was used as a tool. It has been for a long, long time, both I'm helpful ways, and nefarious, malfeasant ways as well. It's just unrealistic to proclaim that it has only one property, that of truth and benefit... Which is unfortunately unfounded when being real!
There is trust, to be sure, but... It has a lot of caveats these days. Like all things, be wary of Greeks bearing Gifts, there's a Fool born every Minute, etc., etc... The science may be innocent, bit beware of the person promoting it or using it to billboard ideologies or agendas.
Is funny... How when then President Nixon declared near on Cancer in the 70's (early) I think the stats were 1 in 10 would be diagnosed with some form of cancer in their lifetime. Today I believe (if I recall correctly) it's something like 1 in 3... Not deaths, just diagnosed! How, why, what, where, etc? But is the profitability of this affliction a driving force in diagnosis, thereby effectuating it's own promotion (care). Prostate Cancer has seen its ups and downs with this very argument in regard to PSA testing... I won't go into the various results or effects. I do believe it's beneficial to the patient. But is that, or was that the "only" driver in the basis to use the testing, etc. Ethical oaths aside, was this eagerly embraced because it would, or could increase patient revenue? We can't sit aside an dismiss the fact that hospitals have Boards and business decisions are made every day. And medical professionals all are involved in these decisions, so are costs and profitability. Testing labs do the same, as do pharmaceuticals... Follow the $ and science is just as complicit and therefore cannot be excluded from the undue influence of finance that enters the process.
Anytime a "study" is done, you have to ask who funded the study, and sometimes that is difficult to find. Studies are sometime sponsored by a third party to avoid the suspicion of bias. That is even more insidious.
As a scientist for many years, I would say that science has over the years tried very very hard to avoid the influence of money. Everything is evaluated and approved by large groups of scientists. Science is way less corruptible then say medicine my other career. The exceptions are well publicized because they are so uncommon.
If only it was that simple. I have seen peer-reviews turn into social-media review type documents since politics infests every area of science, from our government to the assoc professor in charge of the lab. Just the way of the world today, and most likely always was we just didnt know about it.
As far as the corruptibility of science — I’d suggest it is the most solid, evidence-based, self-correcting approach that we can currently imagine. Follow the money and dismiss scientific endeavor? Hardly. Follow the money and find the actors who try to hijack science.
Following the $ is not to dismiss any endeavors, but to understand the possibility of the stick at the end of the carrot! I think there was a law passed recently that requires "all" data from controlled studies to be released, or was it the law was proposed? I believe in science, bit I don't believe that science itself has all the answers, hardly! And the ego, sometimes will have science think it has conquered eons of development and genetic programming in what, a few years or decades? We haven't yet begin to scratch the surface in my opinion, lol. But yes, true science for science sake in it's pure form is the most Noble and Righteous effort, to try and understand the what, why, how!
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
New ED Gell FDA Approved
Shooter, we think (edited)
Re: \"The illusion of evidence based medicine\"
We will fight through this, DAD!
Why We Fight the Fight 
