medical studies

[Guest guest]

I know there is great interest here in doing studies to validate the use of

LDN as a viable medical treatment. Working with clinical trials and the

sometimes questionable results surrounding cancer research, I still pose the

question as to the logic of that decision.

The following is a portion of an article from MSNBC.com dealing with the

mis-truths and sometimes just plain fabrications that occur regularly in the

medical community concerning drugs, procedures, etc...

I am not inferring that this would happen, but I think it is a viable

question to consider. More importantly, one study does not a solution make.

From a statistical standpoint, a single study is a novelty. It has little

more validity than a single good result of an individual inside of a study

group. This is why clinical trials consist of multiple studies before they

are allowed to make claims of any kind.

Please just keep these things in mind. I do not want to see people hurt

from either side of this if the results come back good or bad.

  MSNBC.com

WHAT'S GOOD FOR YOU OFTEN ENDS UP BEING BAD

Nearly one-third of initial medical studies misleading,  major review finds

CHICAGO - Here's  some medical news you can trust: A new study confirms that

what doctors once  said was good for you often turns out to be bad  or at

least not as great as  initially thought.

The report is a  review of major studies published in three influential

medical journals between  1990 and 2003, including 45 highly publicized

studies that initially claimed a  drug or other treatment worked.

Subsequent research  contradicted results of seven studies, ?16 percent,?

and reported weaker results  for seven others, an additional 16 percent.

That means nearly one-third of the  original results did not hold up,

according to the study in Wednesday's Journal  of the American Medical

Association.

Contradicted and  potentially exaggerated findings are not uncommon in the

most visible and most  influential original clinical research, said study

author Dr. Ioannidis, a  researcher at the University of Ioannina in

Greece.

[[[[NOTE: Look at all the  drugs marketed and subsequently taken off the

market as clearly dangerous and  deadly. Within the short space of 9 

months, 3 FDA-approved drugs have had to be removed from the market due to 

lethal side effects, that became known, not during pre-marketing safety and 

efficacy trials, but very soon into their post-marketing, prescription use. 

Both Duract, a non-steroidal  anti-inflammatory pain pill, and Redux

dexfenfluramine of Fen-Phen fame, a  weight loss agent are manufactured by

Wyeth Ayerst. 

Duract was recalled due to 12 cases of  liver failure while Redux (alone and

in combination with phentermine: Fen-Phen)  was found to cause serious 

heart  valve deformities.  Posicor, the  third, an antihypertensive marketed

by Roche Laboratories, has proved lethal  upon interacting with an array of

widely prescribed medications. Only three times in  the past decade has the

FDA removed previously approved drugs due to adverse  post clinical trials,

post-marketing experience.  However, as pointed out by journalist 

Kuttner [The American Prospect, 6/29/98].  The FDA's  approval of drugs that

later turned out to have lethal side effects is the  predictable result of

an industry campaign, abetted by Congressional  Republicans, to speed up the

approval process.

This is part of a larger pattern in  which the health and safety of the

public are being sacrificed to the profit  motive? These needless deaths an

injuries are a result of this drug-approval  stampeded. There is no such

thing, prior to marketing (pre-marketing) as  a long-term study and yet the

FDA provides for no formal, publicly available  survey of postmarketing

experience.  That this is so is clearly to protect  industry economic

interests, regardless of the risk to the public.]]]

ONE STUDY IS NOT ENOUGH

Experts say the study is a reminder to doctors and patients that  they

should not put too much stock in a single study and understand that 

treatments often become obsolete with medical advances.

A single study is  not the final word, and that is an important message,

editors at the New  England Journal of Medicine said in a statement about

the study.  [[[How many of these faulty 'positive' studies were pharma

sponsored, i.e.,  published due to pharma pressure, or financial

influence--number of drug ads  carried in that particular journal.  The

through-and-through rottenness is  evident]]]

The refuted studies  dealt with a wide range of drugs and treatments.

NOTHING'S BLACK AND WHITE

Ioannidis study examined research in the New England Journal  of Medicine,

Lancet and JAMA prominent journals whose weekly studies help feed  a growing

public appetite for medical news.

[[[Note: One thing that is  black and white is that years of publications

about psychiatric " chemical  imbalances " of the brain in JAMA and all of the

leading journals of the world  have represented them to be real, actual,

diseases, spearheading the deception  of the public at large for the sole

purpose of marketing, selling " chemical  balancers " --psychiatric drugs. 

None, so far, have admitted this.  Mr.  Tom Cruise debunked " chemical

imbalances " on the 6/24/05 Today Show and this was  verified by Dr. ph

Glenmullen on the 6/27/05 Today Show. I sent a letter to the President of

the AMA, charging they collude in the fraudulent  " chemical imbalance "

representation. ]]]

[To read the full article, please click link below.]

? 2005  MSNBC.com

URL: _http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8554829/_

(http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8554829/) 

Bruce Guilmette, Ph.D.

Survive Cancer Foundation, Inc.

http://www.survivecancer.net