In treating people? Yes, I think they are doing it wrong.
What am I talking about?
(NaturalNews) Chinese researchers recently warned the world in a study that the H1N1 virus is capable of combining with various other viruses to create “novel pandemic strains.” Published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, the paper states that with the proper mixing host in place, viruses can swap genes and mutate into new strains — and researchers discovered this by deliberately creating 127 of them in a laboratory.
After concocting these 127 hybrid viruses, researchers found that eight of them were more harmful than their parentviruseswhen tested in mice, according to a Reuters report. And researchers warn that these deadly mutant strains may one day be a serious threat to public health because they cause pneumonia, edema, and hemorrhaging. [Read More - Very Scary!]
Although why they felt the need to do this inspires a bit of ponderism…
Drug companies (Big Pharma) are out right now, thanks to funded studies, manufacturing evidence on which medicines you should take in order to make everything all better….
Hidden financial conflicts-of-interest are sneaking into published drug research through the back door, warns an international team of investigators, led by researchers from the Jewish General Hospital’s Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research and McGill University in Montreal.
More and more, policy decisions and what medications doctors prescribe for their patients are being driven by large “studies of studies,” called meta-analyses, which statistically combine results from many individual drug trials.
Led by Dr. Brett Thombs and McGill graduate student Michelle Roseman, the team found that important declarations of financial conflicts-of-interest in individual drug trials disappeared when those studies were combined in meta-analyses. Their results will be published in the March 9 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).
Roseman, the study’s first author, and the rest of the team reviewed 29 recent meta-analyses on a range of drug treatments published in high-impact medical journals. Those 29 meta-analyses, or “studies of studies,” included results from 509 drug trials. The team documented the funding sources and author-industry financial ties of all 509 trials and whether or not the meta-analyses noted who had funded the trials.
“Only 2 of the 29 meta-analyses even mentioned the issue of who funded the original drug trials, and even those 2 did it in very obscure places in the published articles,” said Thombs, a psychologist and assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at McGill University. “Not one of the meta-analyses mentioned whether researchers who conducted the trials were employed by industry or personally received money from industry.”
“Most people want their physicians to make treatment decisions based on high-quality, unbiased evidence,” said Roseman. “Researchers who conduct meta-analyses should be aware of who funds the trials they review and they should assess the risk that findings might be biased due to drug company sponsorship.” [Read More]
It’s enough to make one feel all warm and fuzzy inside, isn’t it?
The field of medical science, on so many levels, in both the diseases and the treatments is seemingly highly manufactured!
Totally sucks for us, doesn’t it?
Beatrice golomb highlights pharma corruption at the science network. She presents Data from NIH, FDA and JAMA including a meta analysis which reveals that orchestrated pharma strategies disguise bad science to appear positive and certain. An example of multiple orchestration of conflict of interest, is charles Nemeroff now sacked from emory university.
Unfortunately the reaction by most working scientists to this manipulation is drawn out often with nothing happening. Shock first, a period of recovery followed by denial, then perhaps action years later. This gives pharma plenty of time to devise new manipulation strategies.
Beatrice a high status researcher, says it is now very difficult to judge the work of other scientists in regards to medical products. It’s not the scientists that are fault, but what happens to their work afterwards.
for an up to date article on this