Re: 90 per cent of published {medical} literature biased
From: Steve Marcus (smarcus_spamout__at_cox.net)
Date: 12/10/04
- Next message: Zee: "Indicting Big Pharma"
- Previous message: the Moderator: "Re: Is Your Trainer Asking You These Questions?"
- In reply to: zwalanga: "Re: 90 per cent of published {medical} literature biased"
- Next in thread: William Wagner: "Re: 90 per cent of published {medical} literature biased"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2004 15:34:40 -0500
"zwalanga" <zwalanga@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1102706865.492531.13920@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> Zee wrote:
>> >
>> > "The main challenge in our work is getting to the truth," says
> Wright.
>> > "It's been estimated that about 90 per cent of the published
>> > literature is biased by economic interests."
>>
>> Wright is looking for truth in the wrong places.
>
>
> Do you have anything to say about this honourable man's comment
> pertaining to medical literature...
Don't know about Dr. Chung, but I do. I see no evidence quoted in the
article in support of the comment you reproduced above. I also see this in
the article, as per your post, this"
"A challenge for the group is a perception that the TI may not be
independent from the provincial government's interest in decreasing costs of
PharmaCare. Wright counters by saying that TI reviews and reports to
government don't include cost data and are limited to evidence of drug
benefits and harms derived from clinical trials. PharmaCare includes TI
reports as just one of the pieces of information it uses to make funding
decisions, he adds."
Prof. Wright's comment re not including cost data in TI's reviews and
reports doesn't mean that the government isn't viewing the TI reports with a
view to reducing costs of PharmaCare; certainly the government knows which
drugs cost how much.
> or only your usual drivel about
> religion.
Drivel comes in all flavors; religion is one such flavor, but so is the
reproduction of conclusions advanced by someone who may have a vested
interest in what the conclusions are, without presentation of any data to
support the conclusions, with the implication that the conclusions are
"gospel."
Steve
-- The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
- Next message: Zee: "Indicting Big Pharma"
- Previous message: the Moderator: "Re: Is Your Trainer Asking You These Questions?"
- In reply to: zwalanga: "Re: 90 per cent of published {medical} literature biased"
- Next in thread: William Wagner: "Re: 90 per cent of published {medical} literature biased"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|