“By bad science we are referring both to the misrepresentation and/or distortion of valid scientific information, and to claims that are made [either] using scientific jargon or presented as being scientific but in reality lack support and plausibility.”
Alliance for Human Research Protection: Can Medical Research be Trusted?
By Vera Hassner Sharav, M.L.S.
SaneVax, Inc., 2 February 2013
“Unfortunately, the entire evidence base has been perverted,” said Joseph Ross, a professor at Yale Medical School who has studied the issue. Commercially corrupted medicine is the leading cause of death in the US—and it is bankrupting the US budget. The Washington Post is addressing both issues in a powerful hard hitting investigative series by Peter Whoriskey titled: Can Medical Research be Trusted?
The focus of the series is on Pharma’s – orchestrated corruption in collaboration with academic scientists and prestigious journals—e.g., The New England Journal of Medicine–provided the authority and veneer of legitimacy to fraudulent, often ghostwritten research reports that claimed that lethal drugs were safe and beneficial while concealing the most severe, lethal adverse effects of prescription drugs, which are a leading cause of death.
The series shines a light on industry manipulated data that was used to gain FDA approval and to “negotiate” the content of FDA- approved labels. And on medical practice guidelines—such as the recently revised, American Psychiatric Association (DSM5) diagnostic and treatment manual—have been crafted by scientists with copious financial ties to companies whose products they promote.
The resounding verdict—much as our own five-part series, America’s Healthcare Crisis—is that medical research, medical journals, medical practice guidelines, FDA advisory panels, and doctors—all of who are bankrolled by the pharmaceutical industry—cannot be trusted!
“Unfortunately, the entire evidence base has been perverted,” said Joseph Ross, a professor at Yale Medical School who has studied the issue.
Another insightful, prominent critic who has examined internal company data, Dr. David Healy, describes the evolution of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that came into favor in the wake of thalidomide as a method to evaluate drugs and their risks.