The Drugs Don’t Work: A Modern Medical Scandal
October 22 2012
By Dr. Mercola
When your physician writes you a prescription, you probably
assume that it has been scientifically proven to be both
effective and safe.
This is the basis upon which the modern medical paradigm
revolves... break this revered tenet and the entire system comes
crashing down.
Well, let me tell you, the walls are already crumbling; the
system is nearing collapse, as all is not what it seems on the
medical forefront as it pertains to science.
You see, those little blue pills, or red ones, or white ones or
whatever color or shape they may be, may very well have been the
subject of a multi-million-dollar, double-blind, placebo-controlled
study. Perhaps even multiple studies.
But that means very little when it comes to protecting your
health, as the system is set up so that drugs can virtually never
fail.
Science is Regularly “Tweaked” in Favor of the Drugs – NOT Your
Health
In an extract from his book Bad Pharma, Ben Goldacre
highlights how drugs enter the market and are promoted as effective
by pharmaceutical companies and doctors, even when trials have shown
then to be ineffective and, often, unsafe.
He first used the example of reboxetine, an antidepressant. He
had read the trial data, which suggested the drug was better than a
placebo and as good as other antidepressants on the market. But that
was because he had reviewed the one study that had been
published in an academic trial.
There were six others as well, but none of the data had
been published. Why? Because they all showed that reboxetine was no
better than a placebo. Other unpublished data on the drug showed it
was less effective than other drugs on the market, while posing a
greater risk of side effects. No right-minded physician
would prescribe this drug to a patient if he or she saw the whole
picture. But the whole picture very rarely gets seen.
Goldacre writes:
“Nobody broke any law in that situation, reboxetine is
still on the market and the system that allowed all this to
happen is still in play, for all drugs, in all countries in the
world. Negative data goes missing, for all treatments, in all
areas of science. The regulators and professional bodies we
would reasonably expect to stamp out such practices have failed
us.
...Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them,
in poorly designed trials, on hopelessly small numbers of weird,
unrepresentative patients, and analysed using techniques that
are flawed by design, in such a way that they exaggerate the
benefits of treatments. Unsurprisingly, these trials tend to
produce results that favour the manufacturer. When trials throw
up results that companies don't like, they are perfectly
entitled to hide them from doctors and patients, so we only ever
see a distorted picture of any drug's true effects.”
Regulators See Most Trial Data – But Even That Doesn’t Translate to
a Safe Drug Market
Regulators are given access to most trial data from drug
companies from early on in the drug’s development. Trial data is
often shared only behind closed doors with the regulators, who then
make a decision about the drug’s future. Conflict of interest,
intimidation and fraud have all played a role in why various drugs
have made it past regulators even when the data showed clear
evidence of harm.
One of the most glaring was Avandia, which was on the market for
years before a study by cardiologist professor Steve Nissen came out
in 2007 showing a 43 percent increase in the risk of heart problems
among patients taking the drug. This study was based on data that
regulators had access to for years, and, in fact, the
drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), had also conducted studies
using this data in 2005 and 2006 – but conveniently didn’t publish
them until 2008.
“Nissen used the rosiglitazone (Avandia) data, when it
became available, and found worrying signs of harm, which they
then published to doctors – something the regulators had never
done, despite having the information years earlier. If
this information had all been freely available from the start,
regulators might have felt a little more anxious about their
decisions but, crucially, doctors and patients could have
disagreed with them and made informed choices. This is why we
need wider access to all trial reports, for all medicines,”
Goldacre wrote.
Industry-Funded Studies Far More Likely to Have Positive Results
Overall, meta-analyses looking into whether industry funding is
associated with positive results shows that an industry-funded study
is about four times as likely to yield favorable results. One study
even found that every trial they reviewed favored the drug of the
study’s sponsor.1
What this means is that even if you scour the medical literature
to determine what the consensus is on any given medical topic, what
you'll find is an overwhelming preponderance of data in favor of the
drug approach that in no way, shape or form reflects the reality of
the scientific investigation that went into that specific drug.
The fact is, there are many ways to turn an otherwise negative
study positive:
- Design bias, or rigging the study to have more favorable
results from the start, such as by comparing the drug to
something you know doesn’t work as well, such as a placebo or
another drug at the wrong dose
- Choosing study participants who are more likely to benefit
from the treatment
- Stopping the trial early if results look good (even if they
would take a turn for the worse in a few more months or years)
- Hiding, or simply not publishing, negative results; in fact,
researchers of industry-funded studies often sign gag orders
that forbid them from publishing, discussing or analyzing data
without permission of the funder
“Because researchers are free to bury any result they
please, patients are exposed to harm on a staggering scale
throughout the whole of medicine. Doctors can have no idea about
the true effects of the treatments they give. Does this drug
really work best, or have I simply been deprived of half the
data? No one can tell. Is this expensive drug worth the money,
or has the data simply been massaged? No one can tell.
Will this drug kill patients? Is there any evidence that
it's dangerous? No one can tell. This is a bizarre situation to
arise in medicine, a discipline in which everything is supposed
to be based on evidence,” Goldacre continued.
Drug Companies are Not Always Legally Obligated to Disclose Serious
Side Effects
Drugs are oftentimes prescribed for so-called “off label uses,”
uses for which the drug hasn’t been specifically approved, but which
physicians can (legally) prescribe them for nonetheless. In order
for the drug to become “official” for a certain off-label use, they
must conduct additional safety studies to be submitted for approval.
But if serious side effects come up during those studies, the
company is not legally obligated to notify anyone – even if the drug
is being used extensively for that purpose.
For instance, GSK conducted trials of its antidepressant drug
paroxetine (Paxil) on children between 1994 and 2002. The studies
not only showed no benefit, but also suggested it may increase their
risk of suicidal tendencies. But GSK made no mention of the
findings, even though tens of thousands of children were receiving
the drug off-label, until 2003 (and even then they mentioned it in
passing at a meeting discussing another issue, Goldacre reported).
Time and time again, we’re seeing that the drug industry is not
concerned about protecting and bettering human health as they would
have you believe, but rather is devoted to protecting their bottom
line. The pharmaceutical industry as a whole has become the
poster-child for fraud, deception, and manipulation of science for
profit. Nearly 20 percent of the
top 100 Corporate Criminals listed for the 1990s were in fact
drug companies!
The Scientific “Well” Has Been Poisoned …
Getting back to my original point... when your physician
prescribes you a medication, even if he or she has reviewed the
relevant published data, there is virtually no way to know whether
that drug is truly safe or effective. The well from which that data
has been drawn has been “poisoned” so that it’s nearly impossible to
decipher what is real and what is a fabrication. Goldacre continued:
“Missing data poisons the well for everybody. If proper
trials are never done, if trials with negative results are
withheld, then we simply cannot know the true effects of the
treatments we use. Evidence in medicine is not an abstract
academic preoccupation. When we are fed bad data, we make the
wrong decisions, inflicting unnecessary pain and suffering, and
death, on people just like us.”
Since it is very well established that most prescribed drugs do
absolutely nothing to treat the cause of disease, it would be
prudent to exercise the precautionary principle when evaluating ANY
drug claim, as it will more than likely be seriously flawed, biased,
or worse... And, of course, I always advise taking control of your
health, which you can easily do by reviewing my
comprehensive nutritional plan that summarizes my thirty years
of clinical experience and treating 25,000 patients. I put this
together so you can stay well and avoid falling into the dangerous,
deceitful traps discussed in this article.
This content may be copied in full, with
copyright, contact, creation and information intact, without specific
permission, when used only in a not-for-profit format. If any other
use is desired, permission in writing from Dr. Mercola is required.
© Copyright 1997-2012 Dr. Joseph Mercola. All Rights Reserved.
|