M
Mr.X
Guest
bigrand said:I talked about the nolva issue because it is a good example of a study done right, not by pharm companies.......bad thing is that these all occur years after the drug has lost its patent and other groups test the drugs in an unbiased manner.
I get your point X, ive taken classes where we go indepth into this specific issue.....however, there are a number of good companies with good drugs that publish relativly good reports (peer reviewed are good one, but not exempt to what you are speaking of).
There is fraud, but to say it is all fraud is nonsense. Its like saying the placebo affect is just as good as the drug (another thing weve discussed at lenght). The truth is, drugs are released that work, some have studies done on them that hide the effectiveness or toxicity, but its deffenitly not all of them.....
Let me ask you this, you said you've taken "classes" where you go indepth about the issue, can you tell me who funds research studies done by most universities? Also, I'd like you to look up Stanford university and Genentech, and find out how much influence a pharmaceutical company like Genentech has on the information that comes out of Stanford. You'd be surprised how many studies are black-balled and shut down because they say anything negative about a pharmaceutical or food company's products.
Also, look up how many pharmaceutical and food company lobbies are out there, to pressure/bribe the FDA and FTC. I don't believe for 1 second that there is truly independent data out there, the minority that's semi-independent is going to be bias or misleading in one way or another. After all, someone has to fund these experiments and studies, and it's not going to be someone with no innate interest in the subject at hand.