Study, Jan/19: Pharm treatments for GAD: a sys review and network meta-analysis

[[Da...]]

 

Data_Guy,

 

The bolded is precisely the problem, I agree, we never have full access to the complete rundown of these specifications and how they are decided on. The raw research and who the researchers are and how exactly they are compensated is all so well hidden and masked that there is hardly any point in trying to read any of the absolute malarkey that gets published. Sometimes it’s blatant and other times it’s only blatant to those who have watched the documentaries that help clarify what we are seeing in plain sight but the general populace blindly trusts.

 

I don’t doubt your sources, I’ve respected my assessment of your record of accuracy and objectivity for some time. I try not to get too excited so as not to interfere with your progress, but I may have slipped up here, God only knows.

 

I know, I’ve brought faith in by now. It’s all so taxing. But what matters for our purposes is discernible science... and I can only trust that as far as I can follow it with my eyes. I found some scary science about bzds, some involving in vivo (womb) development and it was looking like one of the rare compilations of citations with scientific method which can be followed by the reader.

 

Brain fried. 😫 Over and out. One edit to add this: the one documentary I’m thinking of specifically is “American Addict”

 

Mon Pilote,

 

I don't think you interfered with anything. I actually don't expect most people to believe this research, even though it is highly cited an by a reputable scientist. In real life, most people either disbelieve it or get openly hostile. People have a very idealistic view of the medical profession and don't enjoy having it wrecked, but I think most people will find that modern medicine makes more sense if you realize much of it is BS. Often when people do not get better with "treatment" by an antidepressant or an equivalent drug, they take it as a poor reflection on themselves and their healing abilities. But I think just as often it is the fact that the treatment is crap and that most of the scientific basis for it is merely marketing.

 

I recently got a new doctor and he is pretty good, much better than the one I fired, but I asked him if he was aware of how the drug approval process worked and he said he wasn't. This is a fairly rare doctor who is benzo-wise. It's pretty stunning to me that that isn't part of the medical school curriculum, but it can be fairly life changing when you realize doctors don't even really know how to interpret randomized clinical trials properly. These studies are essentially the entire basis for so-called "evidence based medicine". A great concept, but first you need good evidence.

 

Seltzerer,

 

I don't want you to take any criticism I have of the study as a criticism of you. Ioannidis research is not common knowledge, unfortunately, and most people haven't read Healy and Goldacre either. But they do provide a good explanation for why healthcare is the 3rd leading cause of death in the developed world.

[[se...]]

Seltzerer,

 

I don't want you to take any criticism I have of the study as a criticism of you. Ioannidis research is not common knowledge, unfortunately, and most people haven't read Healy and Goldacre either. But they do provide a good explanation for why healthcare is the 3rd leading cause of death in the developed world.

 

Hi, Data_Guy.  Thanks, I didn't take it as criticism of me but I don't share your broad beliefs here.  As I said before and for the same reasons, I'm really not interested in the anti-pharma/anti-psychiatry/anti-medical research debate.

[[...]]

Thanks for sharing your views, Data_Guy.  Some of the anti-pharma and anti-psychiatry (and anti-research? from Ioannidis?) work makes sense but there’s a lot of nonsense as well IMO.  Applying it widely to a discussion on a specific piece of research that comes out usually derails the discussion into the wider more passionate anti-pharma/anti-psychiatry debates and is most often counterproductive in my experience.  I’m more inclined to listen elsewhere to be honest.  To one of your points, I don’t agree that being very specific with timeframes, measurements, or analyses exaggerates results.  And reproducibility is important I agree but I’m not so much worried about it with this study.

 

The above bolded will exaggerate results when tailored to a desired outcome, certainly.

 

I don’t know who Ioannidis is yet, but I have great faith in Whitaker and his findings are damning, he also begins and sets his research and writing angle from an objective and accurate a genesis as is possible, from what little I have read so far.

 

It’s not to say my posts on such matters aren’t for want of a cooler delivery at times, but it doesn’t take a lot of digging to find corruption in studies such as this.

 

My suggestion: let’s find out as much as we can about who did the research and study to begin, before there is any discussion at all. That would be the litmus, for me.

 

So before I read next time, which I don’t because I generally know what I’ll find just by the tone and the above bolded, I’ll look at who did the study... then I’ll read it. Bet you I can find dirt on just about any group funding any one of the studies we generally read and comment about here.

 

MP,

 

I should clarify that the main problem with pharmaceutical sponsorship of the study is that they all have a policy of not releasing the raw data from the study. Not even the regulators see this information. If they released it, there would be no problem, because we could see the methodological tricks and statistical manipulation as clear as day. For now, we have insiders like Healy and Goldacre to inform us. Also the large gap in efficacy of the drugs between the industry sponsored trials and the independent research seems to be clear evidence of malfeasance.

 

I actually have known a couple women who have had kids while on antidepressants, which their doctor told them posed very few risks to their kids. Well one of their babies experienced a withdrawal syndrome after they were born and was in quite a bit of discomfort for months. Of course the doctors called it "Neonatal adaptation syndrome", but the proper non-euphemistic name is obviously drug withdrawal. Here is the description of that syndrome: "Newborns who have been exposed to SSRIs/SNRIs in utero occasionally experience neonatal adaptation syndrome (NAS), which generally exhibits as some combination of respiratory distress 7, 23-26, feeding

difficulty 23, 27, jitteriness 23, irritability, temperature instability 23, 24, sleep problems 28, tremors 29, shivering 29,

restlessness 29, convulsions 24, 30, jaundice 27, 28, rigidity 29, and hypoglycaemia 23, 24, 28, 30. "

http://www.perinatalservicesbc.ca/Documents/Guidelines-Standards/Newborn/AntidepressantUseExposedNewbornGuideline.pdf

 

I don't know how many mothers this has happened to, but I imagine most of them are led to believe they were just unlucky and stay quiet because they are ashamed and upset. It is pretty sickening.

 

Then you have insanely biased, pharma-sponsored sites like this one advising women and doctors: http://www.motherisk.org/prof/updatesDetail.jsp?content_id=1062

 

This website is associated with a major public hospital in Canada and the proprietor, Gideon Koren, is now under investigation for academic fraud. He has ruined quite a few lives in his career.

 

Data_Guy,

 

The bolded is precisely the problem, I agree, we never have full access to the complete rundown of these specifications and how they are decided on. The raw research and who the researchers are and how exactly they are compensated is all so well hidden and masked that there is hardly any point in trying to read any of the absolute malarkey that gets published. Sometimes it’s blatant and other times it’s only blatant to those who have watched the documentaries that help clarify what we are seeing in plain sight but the general populace blindly trusts.

 

Agree! 

I've actually posted a couple of threads on Dr. Ioannidis, if anyone's interested, just do a search here in the News Section.  Good guy, he's trying to make changes for the positive in this regard, including changes as to how researchers/scientists are incentivized which, as it stands today, doesn't lend itself to honest science. 

[[Fi...]]

Vertical integration and expansion by pharmaceutical companies is a growing concern. Recently discussed in other threads, Direct to Physician and Direct to Consumer marketing by pharmaceutical companies has been discussed and some pending litigation has been reported upon.

 

This article touches upon the possible conflicts of interest that may exist in the research and development of new drugs between pharmaceutical companies and public/private universities:

 

https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/04/big-pharma-pays-universities-for-most-medical-research-in-u-s-today/

 

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

 

"There has been an increase in financial partnerships between academic institutions and the pharmaceutical industry.

 

More than half of medical research funding in the U.S now comes from pharmaceutical companies, which exceeds funding of research by the National Institutes of Health.

 

There are serious conflict of interest implications for vaccine (and other) research funded by Big Pharma and conducted by researchers in academia."

 

Edit: I will add that parent & subsidiary companies of big pharma also use similar methods to develop, test and market much of our food supply. Eg. Monsanto is now a subsidiary of Bayer.