- Are Drug Companies Hiding Negative Studies? Adnotated.

Sunday, 28 July, Year 11 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

Let's skip right to the punching.

I. The Not-Punching Part

A study in the Wednesday edition of the Journal of the American Socialist Party reports that 31% of antidepressant trials were not published, and almost all of the unpublished basically showed negative results.

This is bad, obviously, which is why we need a website for all raw data.i But let's be clear: this was a review of studies found in the FDA registry. The FDA had this data, and used it to evaluate the meds. No one hid the data -- they gave the data to the FDA, all of it. What didn't happen was publication.

So the real question is why didn't they get published.

Certainly, Pharma doesn't want negative studies published. But these are Phase 2 and 3 clincial trials. They're not done down at Lilly HQ -- these are done at universities. Pharma didn't block their publication -- they were blocked by the academics who did them, and the journals themselves.

Hi. Is this thing on?ii

You say: why would the academics themselves, committed as they are to science, block publication? Because they'll lose their jobs, that's why. Academics need grant money, and negative studies don't get grant money. Not from Pharma, not from NIH, not from anywhere.iii "Hi. Nothing we've done is better than placebo. Can I have tenure now?"

But more importantly, they don't publish the studies because they're not in the CIA. When a study comes out negative, the academics don't break out the special redacting marker, they don't say, "better bury this." They say, "Mama Mia! It didn't work!" and start over. Their bias is that the study should be positive; so if it comes out negative, the unconscious assumption is that something was wrong with the study.iv

You go up to a girl in a bar, with your new playa skillz, and she maces you in the face. You don't assume you're a tool, you assume she's gay. Oh, and you don't change your skillz.v

Next are peer reviewers, who are unanimously dismissive of any study that doesn't separate from placebo. They don't think its worthy of publication unless it showed a positive result: "this study does not meaningfully add to the existing literature..."

Keep in mind these studies were done > 5 years ago, back when the culture wasn't "everything has equivalent efficacy." Nowadays, that's the hot topic -- studies showing Pharma sucks, or branded meds are no better than generics. Back "then" journals were all about finding the next big thing, the assumption of progress, etc. There's no room in journals for the null

Lead researcher and psychiatrist Erick Turner points out to The Wall Street Journal that doctors unaware of the unpublished studies can make inappropriate prescribing decisions for their patients.

My retina just detached. Seriously? That's the problem?vii

II. The Punching Part

Says the study:

There can be many reasons why the results of a study are not published, and we do not know the reasons for nonpublication. Thus, we cannot determine whether the bias observed resulted from a failure to submit manuscripts on the part of authors and sponsors, decisions by journal editors and reviewers not to publish submitted manuscripts, or both.

That's it. Two sentences. Ok, let's grant them the asylum of ignorance. Explain, then how those two sentences can be interpreted:

But Dr. Jeffrey M. Brazen, editor in chief of the New England Journal, explains to the New York Times why the study is so alarming for doctors and patients. "When you prescribe drugs, you want to make sure you're working with best data possible..." he says. Moreover, patients who agree to be guinea pigs "take some risk to be in the trial, "and then the drug company hides the data?" he asks. "That kind of thing gets us pretty passionate about this issue."

You have to have the deluded bravado of a DJ Khaled video to say the drug company is hiding data when, in fact, you are the one who is responsible.viii

The authors are themselves peer reviewers. Did they ever review a negative article that they recommended publication?

Lead author Erick Turner has "30 publications in peer reviewed journals." How many of those publications had negative results? One: B12 was not effective for seasonal affective disorder. So did he submit negative studies and they were rejected, or did he simply discard them? Turner was also a reviewer for the FDA -- why not simply release all that data? Open acccess? Don't give me this crap about Don't ask Pharma to put their data there. You already have the data -- just release it. To his credit, he has already made this exact recommendation. In 2004. Making this article superfluous...ix

Dr. Drazen, above quoted editor-in-chief of the JASP, has to be insane.x HE'S THE ONE MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE REJECTIONS OF THE NEGATIVE STUDIES. His predecessor was Marcia Angell -- arguably the single worst thing that happened to medicine, everxi. Together they form an impenetrable wall of meaningless social policy articles that no simple negative study could ever penetrate. They reject articles showing Prozac is better than Zoloft; what chance does a Prozac=Zoloft article have?

But the cake goes to anchor author Dr. Rosenthal. You know what his area of research is? "Self-fulfilling prophecies" i.e. "the effects of experimenters' expectations on the results of their research." This guy should know better -- I'm sure he knows better -- than to publish a study like this and not comment on the responsibility -- ok, the effect -- of the academics themselves.

But that would be asking the dog to bite the jaw that it was eating with, which is both impossible and painful.

  1. Which was paid for yet still never happened. []
  2. He's implying something in the vein of being in front of a microphone. []
  3. Not anymore ; steady stream of pantsuit-mocking negative studies is a certain way to Republican tenure. []
  4. No, their unconscious assumption isn't that "something was wrong with the study".

    Their unconscious assumption is the cunt mind : they want to be part of something, and they assume (quite falsely) that the only thing there is to be part of is the mass of retards. Consequently, they censor themselves like highschool junior cuntlets, who will happily and in all seriousness report their "straightedge"-aligned dreams, fantasies and assorted psychogenic noise while their "boyfriend" and his male group are "straightedge" -- only to seamlessly switch to (ever so different! believe!) "gothic" dreams, fantasies and psychogenic noise the same day the vagaries of male prepubescent sexual choice push her into the arms of some equally dorky teen from the ever-so-distinct "gothic" group.

    "We were always at war with Eastasia" is such a recognizable macula of the socialist state because, like all utopias, the socialist state translates into the public sphere the private mechanics of the fundamentally female brain function. Like all brain function the female brain also organizes phenomena into ideal structures according to an ideological structure ; it just happens that the prime imperative evolution has selected for the female is the salvation of as many children as possible, and therefore stability ("truth", in male terminology) has to take on a secondary role.

    They're just saying what they figure authority wants to hear so they don't get killed, what's so hard about this concept ? There's no further content in there besides this projection of will, which is why their silencing is preferable. []

  5. This is exactly the wrong example ; but then again the author wants some things to be true, and looking at how divorce incidence is a linear approximation of exactly how much it pays the female to get one wouldn't bring much support. []
  6. And how did it become the hot topic ? For that matter, how did the Republic become the dominant force in Anglo culture ? Don't tell me "there was some demand, which was filled", I was there when the demand was Dirlewanger'd out of "society" / "mainstream" / "media" / etcetera assholes, on iron hooks. I forged many of the very fucking hooks employed! []
  7. Prescribing decisions, keks. []
  8. Here's a fun fact : did you notice I altered the schmuck's name, from the original Drazen to the much more context-adequate Brazen ? No ?

    Awww. So you're saying he's practically anonymous, at least in the sense that no responsibility can meaningfully attach to him personally, irrespective of what he says ? How can this possibly be bravado, then ? Braves risk death, this guy's just safely working the numbers. What else would you have him say ? (Spoiler : he'll say it). []

  9. This entire pile of safe players, "making recommendations" for others to act upon, just as long as those others can be found to eat all the downside and deliver all the upside... they're all fucking superfluous, altogether. []
  10. He's not insane, he's just ESLtarded. []
  11. And coincidentally a woman, I'm sure ; and just as coincidentally Harvard, of course.

    She was the first female ever permitted to edit the NEJM.

    Remember Hussein Bahamas ? The first nigger presenting black permitted to "president of the united states" ? []

Category: Adnotations
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

3 Responses

  1. [...] Are Drug Companies Hiding Negative Studies? [...]

  2. [...] the studies about this are absent, because they're just not being done, meaning that a "study-driven policy" approach will result in lopsided insanity. QED. [↩]I [...]

  3. [...] knew that already. You were the ones who didn't publish it -- it's your journal. Turner worked for 3 years as an NIH reviewer. He just notices this [...]

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.