Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Sushan]

This topic is about the May 2024 Philosophy Book of the Month, Neither Safe Nor Effective (2nd Edition): The Evidence Against the COVID Vaccines by Dr. Colleen Huber

GettyImages-1209664299.jpg (504.01 KiB) Viewed 2589 times

Dr. Colleen Huber raised significant concerns regarding the trustworthiness of medical research, particularly studies funded by the pharmaceutical industry. She pointed out that often,

The title and the abstract would seem to praise vaccines, while the data shown in the fine print deep inside each of these papers very often contradict the title of the same paper, and very often show the dangers of the vaccines.

-OBC Interview with the Author-

In a capitalist framework, where the pursuit of profit can overshadow other considerations, it’s essential to question the reliability of medical research. How often do financial interests shape the outcomes or the presentation of scientific data? The author suggests that due to the dependency on pharmaceutical funding, researchers might feel compelled to "color inside the lines," leading to publications that may not fully align with the raw data.

This scenario underscores a broader philosophical and ethical dilemma: In a world driven by monetary gain, can we truly trust the medical research that informs public health decisions?

Furthermore, the author’s approach—focusing on finer details that might support a particular viewpoint—also prompts us to consider the role of confirmation bias in scientific interpretations. The intention behind highlighting specific aspects of research raises questions about the objectivity of critics like the author. Is the skepticism toward pharmaceutical-funded studies a reflection of genuine concern for public safety, or is it also influenced by personal or ideological biases?

[claraalex620]

In a capitalist society, medical research credibility may come under examination. However, respectable scientific institutions and ethical principles seek to maintain integrity, even though financial interests may affect some elements of research. It is crucial to look for a variety of sources and assess study findings critically. The same goes for finding trustworthy material for academic endeavors: getting trustworthy online biology homework help guarantees correctness and trustworthiness when deciphering intricate biological concepts. Students may traverse the complexity of medical research and contribute to a more informed society by developing critical thinking abilities and encouraging evidence-based learning.

[LuckyR]

"Medical research" comprises many different types. First there is FDA required documentation to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in order to get approval. Of course the Pharma industry should pay for that (who else could or should?). AFTER drugs are approved, Big Pharma pays for (sometimes shady) research to show their expensive drug is "better" than older, cheaper drugs. However, academic researchers, using their own funding do this sort of thing to show there's no difference. Of course there's nothing preventing the makers of the older drugs from jumping in to even the playing field. However it bears mentioning the vast majority of medical articles are not drug comparisons.

[Sushan]

In a capitalist society, medical research credibility may come under examination. However, respectable scientific institutions and ethical principles seek to maintain integrity, even though financial interests may affect some elements of research. It is crucial to look for a variety of sources and assess study findings critically. The same goes for finding trustworthy material for academic endeavors: getting trustworthy online biology homework help guarantees correctness and trustworthiness when deciphering intricate biological concepts. Students may traverse the complexity of medical research and contribute to a more informed society by developing critical thinking abilities and encouraging evidence-based learning.

To argue for the trustworthiness of medical research, we must acknowledge the importance of regulatory oversight. In many regions, research is conducted under the strict guidance of regulatory bodies like the U.S. FDA, which imposes rigorous standards for ethical practices and accuracy. Peer review also acts as a cornerstone of quality assurance, where independent experts critically evaluate studies before publication. Moreover, professional ethics play a significant role, as many researchers are motivated by a genuine commitment to scientific integrity and improving patient care.

On the other hand, skepticism is understandable due to the inherent conflicts of interest in a profit-driven environment. Pharmaceutical companies often fund a significant portion of medical research, and the pursuit of financial gain can sometimes lead to bias in study design or data interpretation. Publication bias remains a persistent challenge, as studies showing positive results are more likely to be published than those reporting negative findings. Additionally, reproducibility issues can undermine trust when subsequent researchers cannot replicate the results of initial studies.

In navigating these complexities, it's important to approach research critically. Consulting diverse sources is key to getting a well-rounded perspective, and careful consideration of conflicts of interest can help gauge a study's credibility. Developing strong critical thinking skills and understanding research methodology also enhance one's ability to evaluate the validity of findings.

While the profit motive can introduce biases, the structures in place, such as peer review and regulatory oversight, aim to minimize these risks. Promoting transparency, education, and ethical practices, along with robust peer review, are vital in maintaining the trustworthiness of medical research.

In your view, what other mechanisms might help improve the reliability and credibility of medical research?

[Sushan]

"Medical research" comprises many different types. First there is FDA required documentation to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in order to get approval. Of course the Pharma industry should pay for that (who else could or should?). AFTER drugs are approved, Big Pharma pays for (sometimes shady) research to show their expensive drug is "better" than older, cheaper drugs. However, academic researchers, using their own funding do this sort of thing to show there's no difference. Of course there's nothing preventing the makers of the older drugs from jumping in to even the playing field. However it bears mentioning the vast majority of medical articles are not drug comparisons.

You raise a significant concern about the credibility of pharmaceutical research in a profit-driven world, especially when discussing drug trials and their outcomes. Indeed, there have been documented cases where pharmaceutical companies engaged in practices that compromised the integrity of their research.

For example, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) faced severe legal actions, paying billions to resolve fraud allegations and failure to report safety data regarding drugs like Paxil and Avandia. They promoted Paxil for unapproved uses and did not disclose two studies where the drug failed to show efficacy in treating depression in patients under 18 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmi ... ure-report).

Similarly, Merck faced accusations related to its handling of the drug Vioxx. It was found that they manipulated clinical trial results to downplay the risks associated with the drug, which significantly increased the risk of heart attacks among users. This manipulation led to thousands of preventable deaths due to heart-related issues before the drug was pulled from the market (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck- ... drug-vioxx).

These examples reflect the complexities of ensuring drug safety and efficacy in environments where financial interests might influence the outcomes of clinical trials. It raises the question of whether we should automatically accept claims of safety and efficacy without thorough independent verification, particularly when many people report adverse effects not initially disclosed by the manufacturers. It emphasizes the need for a more transparent and rigorously regulated process to evaluate pharmaceutical products, ensuring that decisions are based on robust, unbiased, and comprehensive scientific evidence.

[LuckyR]

"Medical research" comprises many different types. First there is FDA required documentation to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in order to get approval. Of course the Pharma industry should pay for that (who else could or should?). AFTER drugs are approved, Big Pharma pays for (sometimes shady) research to show their expensive drug is "better" than older, cheaper drugs. However, academic researchers, using their own funding do this sort of thing to show there's no difference. Of course there's nothing preventing the makers of the older drugs from jumping in to even the playing field. However it bears mentioning the vast majority of medical articles are not drug comparisons.

You raise a significant concern about the credibility of pharmaceutical research in a profit-driven world, especially when discussing drug trials and their outcomes. Indeed, there have been documented cases where pharmaceutical companies engaged in practices that compromised the integrity of their research.

For example, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) faced severe legal actions, paying billions to resolve fraud allegations and failure to report safety data regarding drugs like Paxil and Avandia. They promoted Paxil for unapproved uses and did not disclose two studies where the drug failed to show efficacy in treating depression in patients under 18 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmi ... ure-report).

Similarly, Merck faced accusations related to its handling of the drug Vioxx. It was found that they manipulated clinical trial results to downplay the risks associated with the drug, which significantly increased the risk of heart attacks among users. This manipulation led to thousands of preventable deaths due to heart-related issues before the drug was pulled from the market (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck- ... drug-vioxx).

These examples reflect the complexities of ensuring drug safety and efficacy in environments where financial interests might influence the outcomes of clinical trials. It raises the question of whether we should automatically accept claims of safety and efficacy without thorough independent verification, particularly when many people report adverse effects not initially disclosed by the manufacturers. It emphasizes the need for a more transparent and rigorously regulated process to evaluate pharmaceutical products, ensuring that decisions are based on robust, unbiased, and comprehensive scientific evidence.

I don't disagree, though that's less about "research" in the journal writing context and more about governmental regulations (of the FDA).

[Sushan]

"Medical research" comprises many different types. First there is FDA required documentation to demonstrate safety and effectiveness in order to get approval. Of course the Pharma industry should pay for that (who else could or should?). AFTER drugs are approved, Big Pharma pays for (sometimes shady) research to show their expensive drug is "better" than older, cheaper drugs. However, academic researchers, using their own funding do this sort of thing to show there's no difference. Of course there's nothing preventing the makers of the older drugs from jumping in to even the playing field. However it bears mentioning the vast majority of medical articles are not drug comparisons.

You raise a significant concern about the credibility of pharmaceutical research in a profit-driven world, especially when discussing drug trials and their outcomes. Indeed, there have been documented cases where pharmaceutical companies engaged in practices that compromised the integrity of their research.

For example, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) faced severe legal actions, paying billions to resolve fraud allegations and failure to report safety data regarding drugs like Paxil and Avandia. They promoted Paxil for unapproved uses and did not disclose two studies where the drug failed to show efficacy in treating depression in patients under 18 (https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/glaxosmi ... ure-report).

Similarly, Merck faced accusations related to its handling of the drug Vioxx. It was found that they manipulated clinical trial results to downplay the risks associated with the drug, which significantly increased the risk of heart attacks among users. This manipulation led to thousands of preventable deaths due to heart-related issues before the drug was pulled from the market (https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/merck- ... drug-vioxx).

These examples reflect the complexities of ensuring drug safety and efficacy in environments where financial interests might influence the outcomes of clinical trials. It raises the question of whether we should automatically accept claims of safety and efficacy without thorough independent verification, particularly when many people report adverse effects not initially disclosed by the manufacturers. It emphasizes the need for a more transparent and rigorously regulated process to evaluate pharmaceutical products, ensuring that decisions are based on robust, unbiased, and comprehensive scientific evidence.

I don't disagree, though that's less about "research" in the journal writing context and more about governmental regulations (of the FDA).

Yes, you have a point. But this issue is a complex one, and I would like to add some more from my end.

Research indicates that big pharma companies have a substantial influence on the trustworthiness of medical research due to their focus on profit maximization. The financial interests of these companies often lead to prioritizing drug development in ways that maximize returns rather than purely focusing on patient health outcomes. For instance, it's reported that big pharmaceutical companies spend a considerable amount on research and development (R&D), but this spending is often closely tied to potential financial returns rather than broader health benefits (https://www.mmm-online.com/home/channel ... ug-prices/).

However, the role of governmental regulation, specifically the FDA, cannot be overlooked. The FDA’s regulatory framework is designed to ensure that drugs are safe and effective, but challenges such as funding constraints, political pressures, and the complex nature of regulatory science can impact its effectiveness. Furthermore, the FDA has faced criticism for being too close to the pharmaceutical industry, which can lead to potential conflicts of interest and impact the rigor of drug approval processes (https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-18-40).

The interaction between these factors creates a landscape where both inadequate regulation and profit-driven research can contribute to issues with the trustworthiness of medical research. Addressing these problems would require both tightening regulatory oversight to ensure more independent review processes and re-evaluating the incentive structures that drive pharmaceutical research towards prioritizing profit over patient care.

[LuckyR]

The interaction between these factors creates a landscape where both inadequate regulation and profit-driven research can contribute to issues with the trustworthiness of medical research. Addressing these problems would require both tightening regulatory oversight to ensure more independent review processes and re-evaluating the incentive structures that drive pharmaceutical research towards prioritizing profit over patient care.

Well, in the perfect world a Pharma company could demonstrate that their new drug was (reasonably) safe and effective against a particular problem and get approved for sale BUT if the Pharma company charged a very high price for it (which is routinely done currently), no one would write for it until it was (fairly and accurately) demonstrated that wasn't merely effective, but significantly more effective (or significantly safer) than existing cheaper drugs. Docs could do that right now without any change in anything.

[Sushan]

The interaction between these factors creates a landscape where both inadequate regulation and profit-driven research can contribute to issues with the trustworthiness of medical research. Addressing these problems would require both tightening regulatory oversight to ensure more independent review processes and re-evaluating the incentive structures that drive pharmaceutical research towards prioritizing profit over patient care.

Well, in the perfect world a Pharma company could demonstrate that their new drug was (reasonably) safe and effective against a particular problem and get approved for sale BUT if the Pharma company charged a very high price for it (which is routinely done currently), no one would write for it until it was (fairly and accurately) demonstrated that wasn't merely effective, but significantly more effective (or significantly safer) than existing cheaper drugs. Docs could do that right now without any change in anything.

I completely agree with the ideal scenario you've outlined, where drug pricing aligns more closely with the actual benefits it provides. However, this circles us back to a fundamental issue: the reliability of research and our ability to trust the results provided by entities driven by profit, not public welfare. We find ourselves in a societal construct where skepticism towards the motives of others, particularly in industries like pharmaceuticals, is unfortunately warranted due to the overwhelming drive for profit.

You make an excellent point about doctors' ability to prioritize prescribing cost-effective and efficient medications. There are healthcare professionals who resist the pressures from the pharmaceutical industry to promote newer, more expensive drugs. However, standing up to these powerful entities isn't without risk. Prof. Senaka Bibile's, a well known figure from my country, efforts to combat unethical practices in the drug industry and his mysterious death underscore the peril faced by those who challenge the status quo.

This raises a broader question about how we can protect and support individuals who take a stand for ethical practices in healthcare. How can systems be put in place to ensure that those who fight for justice and transparency are not left vulnerable to retaliation by powerful industry players? It's a complex issue, but one that needs addressing if we are ever to move towards the ideal scenario you describe. What are your thoughts on potential safeguards or reforms that could support such individuals?

[LuckyR]

The interaction between these factors creates a landscape where both inadequate regulation and profit-driven research can contribute to issues with the trustworthiness of medical research. Addressing these problems would require both tightening regulatory oversight to ensure more independent review processes and re-evaluating the incentive structures that drive pharmaceutical research towards prioritizing profit over patient care.

Well, in the perfect world a Pharma company could demonstrate that their new drug was (reasonably) safe and effective against a particular problem and get approved for sale BUT if the Pharma company charged a very high price for it (which is routinely done currently), no one would write for it until it was (fairly and accurately) demonstrated that wasn't merely effective, but significantly more effective (or significantly safer) than existing cheaper drugs. Docs could do that right now without any change in anything.

I completely agree with the ideal scenario you've outlined, where drug pricing aligns more closely with the actual benefits it provides. However, this circles us back to a fundamental issue: the reliability of research and our ability to trust the results provided by entities driven by profit, not public welfare. We find ourselves in a societal construct where skepticism towards the motives of others, particularly in industries like pharmaceuticals, is unfortunately warranted due to the overwhelming drive for profit.

You make an excellent point about doctors' ability to prioritize prescribing cost-effective and efficient medications. There are healthcare professionals who resist the pressures from the pharmaceutical industry to promote newer, more expensive drugs. However, standing up to these powerful entities isn't without risk. Prof. Senaka Bibile's, a well known figure from my country, efforts to combat unethical practices in the drug industry and his mysterious death underscore the peril faced by those who challenge the status quo.

This raises a broader question about how we can protect and support individuals who take a stand for ethical practices in healthcare. How can systems be put in place to ensure that those who fight for justice and transparency are not left vulnerable to retaliation by powerful industry players? It's a complex issue, but one that needs addressing if we are ever to move towards the ideal scenario you describe. What are your thoughts on potential safeguards or reforms that could support such individuals?

Interesting. In my practice (where the pharmacies are part of the health delivery system), drugs can't get on the formulary until approved by the Formulary Committee, which is made up of docs, pharmacists and board members. So expensive drugs don't get approved until it is definitively demonstrated that they are superior, and then they're only approved for the uses and scenarios where that superiority has been proven. When docs try to write for them (on their computers), they either won't show up, or the computer will query them as to whether the patient has all of the inclusion criteria to warrant it. Saves big bucks. True, it's kind of annoying, but hey, the better the corporation does, the more secure is my health care in retirement, so I'm good with it.

[Sushan]

The interaction between these factors creates a landscape where both inadequate regulation and profit-driven research can contribute to issues with the trustworthiness of medical research. Addressing these problems would require both tightening regulatory oversight to ensure more independent review processes and re-evaluating the incentive structures that drive pharmaceutical research towards prioritizing profit over patient care.

Well, in the perfect world a Pharma company could demonstrate that their new drug was (reasonably) safe and effective against a particular problem and get approved for sale BUT if the Pharma company charged a very high price for it (which is routinely done currently), no one would write for it until it was (fairly and accurately) demonstrated that wasn't merely effective, but significantly more effective (or significantly safer) than existing cheaper drugs. Docs could do that right now without any change in anything.

I completely agree with the ideal scenario you've outlined, where drug pricing aligns more closely with the actual benefits it provides. However, this circles us back to a fundamental issue: the reliability of research and our ability to trust the results provided by entities driven by profit, not public welfare. We find ourselves in a societal construct where skepticism towards the motives of others, particularly in industries like pharmaceuticals, is unfortunately warranted due to the overwhelming drive for profit.

You make an excellent point about doctors' ability to prioritize prescribing cost-effective and efficient medications. There are healthcare professionals who resist the pressures from the pharmaceutical industry to promote newer, more expensive drugs. However, standing up to these powerful entities isn't without risk. Prof. Senaka Bibile's, a well known figure from my country, efforts to combat unethical practices in the drug industry and his mysterious death underscore the peril faced by those who challenge the status quo.

This raises a broader question about how we can protect and support individuals who take a stand for ethical practices in healthcare. How can systems be put in place to ensure that those who fight for justice and transparency are not left vulnerable to retaliation by powerful industry players? It's a complex issue, but one that needs addressing if we are ever to move towards the ideal scenario you describe. What are your thoughts on potential safeguards or reforms that could support such individuals?

Interesting. In my practice (where the pharmacies are part of the health delivery system), drugs can't get on the formulary until approved by the Formulary Committee, which is made up of docs, pharmacists and board members. So expensive drugs don't get approved until it is definitively demonstrated that they are superior, and then they're only approved for the uses and scenarios where that superiority has been proven. When docs try to write for them (on their computers), they either won't show up, or the computer will query them as to whether the patient has all of the inclusion criteria to warrant it. Saves big bucks. True, it's kind of annoying, but hey, the better the corporation does, the more secure is my health care in retirement, so I'm good with it.

That sounds like a robust system designed to ensure the efficacy and safety of drugs before they are widely used, and it clearly has its benefits for both the healthcare system and patients. In my country, we have a similar setup, though not as sophisticated due to limited resources and the lack of a fully computerized healthcare system.

However, we've faced significant challenges with breaches in the system. Recent investigations have uncovered corruption involving high-ranking officials, including the Health Minister, leading to breaches in the drug evaluation and approval process. Many of these corrupt individuals are now in jail, including the minister, but the trust in our system remains severely damaged.

Given these challenges, do you have any suggestions on how we could implement stronger measures to ensure the integrity of the drug evaluation and approval process? What steps can we take to rebuild trust in our healthcare system and prevent such corruption in the future?

[LuckyR]

That sounds like a robust system designed to ensure the efficacy and safety of drugs before they are widely used, and it clearly has its benefits for both the healthcare system and patients. In my country, we have a similar setup, though not as sophisticated due to limited resources and the lack of a fully computerized healthcare system.

However, we've faced significant challenges with breaches in the system. Recent investigations have uncovered corruption involving high-ranking officials, including the Health Minister, leading to breaches in the drug evaluation and approval process. Many of these corrupt individuals are now in jail, including the minister, but the trust in our system remains severely damaged.

Given these challenges, do you have any suggestions on how we could implement stronger measures to ensure the integrity of the drug evaluation and approval process? What steps can we take to rebuild trust in our healthcare system and prevent such corruption in the future?

Like most things in Life involving humans, it's all about understanding motivations and designing systems to leverage that understanding. Our system is comprehensive (in the sense that the labs, pharmacies, insurance arm and ancillary services are all in the same corporation as the standard health delivery) and thus the various divisions are not in financial competition with one another. In addition as we started as a capitated system with provider paid for their time not procedures, there is no incentive to approve care beyond what is medically necessary. Since we're an individual corporation (not a whole country) no Pharma company is going to risk trying to bribe a Formulary Committee member to try to get a set of expensive drugs approved. The docs are financially tied to the financial health of the corporation since that's who provides their healthcare in their retirement. Thus everyone's incentives are aligned to provide only necessary, cost effective care.

[LifeUnboxed]

No, medical research in a profit-driven world often faces issues like conflicts of interest, where pharmaceutical companies may influence study outcomes to favor their products. Publication bias skews results by favoring positive findings, and regulatory bodies can be swayed by industry lobbying. Lack of transparency and data manipulation further compromise trust. These factors undermine the reliability and integrity of medical research, making it less trustworthy in a profit-driven context.

[Sushan]

That sounds like a robust system designed to ensure the efficacy and safety of drugs before they are widely used, and it clearly has its benefits for both the healthcare system and patients. In my country, we have a similar setup, though not as sophisticated due to limited resources and the lack of a fully computerized healthcare system.

However, we've faced significant challenges with breaches in the system. Recent investigations have uncovered corruption involving high-ranking officials, including the Health Minister, leading to breaches in the drug evaluation and approval process. Many of these corrupt individuals are now in jail, including the minister, but the trust in our system remains severely damaged.

Given these challenges, do you have any suggestions on how we could implement stronger measures to ensure the integrity of the drug evaluation and approval process? What steps can we take to rebuild trust in our healthcare system and prevent such corruption in the future?

Like most things in Life involving humans, it's all about understanding motivations and designing systems to leverage that understanding. Our system is comprehensive (in the sense that the labs, pharmacies, insurance arm and ancillary services are all in the same corporation as the standard health delivery) and thus the various divisions are not in financial competition with one another. In addition as we started as a capitated system with provider paid for their time not procedures, there is no incentive to approve care beyond what is medically necessary. Since we're an individual corporation (not a whole country) no Pharma company is going to risk trying to bribe a Formulary Committee member to try to get a set of expensive drugs approved. The docs are financially tied to the financial health of the corporation since that's who provides their healthcare in their retirement. Thus everyone's incentives are aligned to provide only necessary, cost effective care.

I am quite impressed by your system. As you mentioned, motivations are crucial when dealing with humans. However, in my country, these motivations are often difficult to discern and are primarily driven by corruption, in stark contrast to your system. It's challenging to find individuals who neither take bribes nor offer them. Those who strive to work honestly often find themselves penalized by the corrupt majority. Unlike your capitated system, ours relies mostly on welfare, yet it seems the mindset of many is still geared towards maximizing personal gain. We also lack competition between organizations, which may be why every part of our system is deteriorating uniformly, creating a uniformly detrimental impact on everyone involved.

[Sushan]

No, medical research in a profit-driven world often faces issues like conflicts of interest, where pharmaceutical companies may influence study outcomes to favor their products. Publication bias skews results by favoring positive findings, and regulatory bodies can be swayed by industry lobbying. Lack of transparency and data manipulation further compromise trust. These factors undermine the reliability and integrity of medical research, making it less trustworthy in a profit-driven context.

I appreciate your insights, and you've articulated the complexities well. The potential for conflicts of interest and publication bias in a profit-driven healthcare system is indeed troubling. The influence of pharmaceutical companies can profoundly impact study outcomes, often to the detriment of objective science.

Your point about regulatory bodies being susceptible to industry lobbying adds another layer to the discussion. The lack of transparency and potential for data manipulation are critical issues that can severely compromise the integrity and reliability of medical research. It's crucial for us to explore mechanisms that can mitigate these influences.

What steps do you think could be implemented to enhance transparency and reduce the impact of these profit-driven biases? Could third-party oversight or stronger regulations on disclosure practices help address these concerns? Additionally, how might we better educate the public to critically evaluate the research they encounter, especially when it could affect their health decisions?