Get The Big Diabetes Lie Review PDF eBook Book Free | Page 18

Unwanted Results are not Published
Results showed that industry-sponsored studies were 3.6 times more likely to have
results that favored the industry than studies with no financial ties to the industry.
Drug companies publish only a fraction of the studies they fund -- the ones that
promote their drugs . If a study does not have findings that are favorable to its
product, it is unlikely it will ever make it into a journal for publication.
There are simply thousands of scientific studies out there that have never been seen
by you or your physician because they have been screened out by editors and
reviewers who are being paid to uphold an industry agenda.
Published studies overwhelmingly favor the funding company’s drug. Whichever
drug is manufactured by the study sponsor is the drug that comes out on top, 90
percent of the time!
Selectively omitting negative results from clinical trials can actually be deadly to
your health. Merck & Co. proved this statement when during clinical trials of their
Vioxx drug they concealed the fact that three patients suffered heart attacks. They
conveniently omitted this data (along with other relevant findings) from the copy of
the study they submitted to the New England Journal of Medicine for publication.
The omissions were uncovered years later during the 7,000 Vioxx lawsuit
litigations.
What Happens to Those Who Speak Out?
Intimidating phone calls, direct threats, loss of funding, bans from organizations,
loss of licenses, ridicule etc.
In one case, Dr. Buse, an endocrinologist who is the incoming president of the
American Diabetes Association, presented data in 1999 about his concerns about
the risks of Avandia. Dr. Buse was intimidated with multiple phone calls by drug
company officials. They suggested he could be financially liable to the company for
$4 billion in lost revenues due to his “unscrupulous remarks.”
Court evidence now available on-line at the University of California library shows
drug giant Merck systematically targeted “hit-lists” of doctors in order to discredit,
neutralize, ridicule, or destroy the critics who spoke out against the safety and
effectiveness of Merck’s drugs.
The methods used to do this included threatening to cut research funding and
attempting to block academic appointments. Remember, drug companies do not
www.theictm.org
Preview - 7 Steps to Health and the Big Diabetes Lie