REALLY angry

[kasper87]

http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/ma...t-osiris-genzyme-discontinue-phase-iii-trial/

If this is another DRUG COMPANY PAY OFF.. Ill be mad..

This is all i got left if Remicade Fails..

 

[Mark33180]

yeah said high rate of improvement with placebo, so maybe they messed something up.... who knows

 

[kasper87]

It said nothing was wrong with safety.....
I just think there is something fishy going on..
It will take a year just to start another trial..

I hope remicade lasts longer then expected.

 

[Mark33180]

i am all about giving stem cell research a try to get rid of crohns

 

[D Bergy]

Never trust a drug study done by the company selling the product. There are so many crystal clear examples of baised studies the results cannot be trusted.

Dan

 

[Colt]

The FDA would probably not accepted the trial based on a very clear error. With the placebo numbers artificially high the drug probably would have looked incorrectly ineffective because the effectiveness is determined by the difference between the placebo and nonplacebo percentages and the drug company absolutely doesn't want to release a study saying the drug doesn't work, true or not.

 

[kello82]

bah!! i was close to being in this study! it was either that or tysabri.

sheesh glad i didnt waste my time with it.

 

[saidinstouch]

You can trust all drug company run trials as they have absolutely zero control over how the data is processed. An independent analytical company reviews all the data and controls when any and all data is unblinded in these studies. In most cases the drug company only has anecdotal evidence their drug is or is not working and everytime a single datapoint is unblinded, there is a penalty to the statistical analysis in which effectiveness is determined. I know you think it is all a big conspiracy, but in this situation drug companies literally have zero control except to cancel the trial if the data safety monitoring board gives them a result like this.

 

[ladyB]

I think whoever has the deepest pockets in pharmaceutical industry is the one who says, "Yep or Nope".

 

[D Bergy]

First of all, I have never ever said here, or anywhere else that there is a conspiracy involving drug companies. I have never believed it is a conspiracy, and have stated so before. I would say that I have a much better chance of knowing what I do, and do not believe than someone else. That is purely your own opinion based on zero evidence. You can repeat this as many times as you wish, but it does not make it a fact. If anything it is an example of how a person jumps to conclusions without any evidence, which is precisly what you are accusing me of doing.

Secondly, there is no possible way for you to know what I think. Anymore than I can know what you think. I will be in charge of what I think.

I base my opinions on factual information that is gathered by people who do not have a financial interest in the conclusion. I do not know what you are basing your opinions on. The links below are factual findings that proves that drug companies do in fact skew the conclusions of studies, and exclude unfavorable information. If they do it in some of the trials that are investigated, it is reasonable to assume it is also done in others. The average person has no way of knowing which are legit and which have been spun.

A five minute search would have verified what I was reffering to.


http://tinyurl.com/ddwu6w

http://tinyurl.com/4suwej

http://tinyurl.com/23zvtv

http://tinyurl.com/cgozg8

You can also look up a few of the references listed below. There are many others also.

Kassirer, J.P. On the take: How medicine's complicity with big business can endanger your health. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press: 2005.; Lesser et al. ‘Relationship between funding source and conclusion among nutrition-related scientific articles’. PLoS Medicine 2007.; Jorgensen AW, Hilden J, Gotzsche PC. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. BMJ 2006;333:782-5.;Veronica Yank, Drummond Rennie, Lisa A Bero, Financial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study BMJ 2007;335:1202-1205 (8 December), doi:10.1136/bmj.39376.447211.BE (published 16 November 2007); Jim Giles, Industry money skews drug overviews Nature 437, 458-459 (22 September 2005); DeAngelis, C. Comment on “Conflict of interest in medical research: facts and friction” in meeting proceedings, call to action: Managing financial relationships between academia and industry in biomedical research 2007; 15-16.;Peppercorn, J, Blood, E., Winer, E, Partridge, A. Association between pharmaceutical involvement and outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology 2005.

 

[CD68]

I was profoundly disapponted in hearing this news as well. The good news is that it's not totally hopeless. It's a two year set back.

I am amazed that with so much money is at stake, millions, their attitude is "ooopsie, we screwed up the study". Two years of salaries and expenses down the drain. Is it that hard to hire competent professionals to set up the studies?

This is all very depressing.