Science is an objective process, but people are not objective. It’s people, with interests of their own, who conduct and fund scientific research. If the science being done was objective, it obviously wouldn’t matter who funded studies. Meanwhile, down here in the real world, unfortunately it does. Commercial sponsorship not only affects what is being studied, but also how it is studied, and what information will ultimately reach the public. Research that does not further commercial interests is not likely to attract funds, and if the results of commercial research do not further the interests of those funding it, it is not likely to see the light of day.
Studies that support sponsored interests are published quickly while unfavorable results are often slow to come out, or even completely buried. In science you are supposed to posit a claim and then try to debunk the hypothesis to show that it stands to scrutiny. Who is attempting to debunk drugs?
In competitive drug trials, whoever funds the study comes out on top! When the Journal of Psychiatry did a survey of psychiatric drug trials, they found a curious thing: In five trials that were paid for by Eli Lilly, its drug, Zyprexa, came out looking superior to Risperdal, a drug made by the company Janssen. But when Janssen sponsored its own trials, Risperdal was the winner three out of four times. When Pfizer funded the studies, their drug, Geodon, was best. In fact, this tendency for the sponsor of a drug trial’s medication to appear to perform best held true for 90% of more than thirty trials in the survey. The house always wins!
In 2003, separate studies were published in JAMA and the British Medical Journal showing that the odds are 3.6 to 4 times greater that commercially sponsored studies will favor the sponsor’s product than studies without commercial funding. Another study published in JAMA the same year found that among the highest-quality clinical trials, the odds that those with commercial sponsorship will recommend the new drugs were 5.3 times greater than for studies funded by non-profit organizations.
Drug company money is behind almost all medical research done today. Some is still being done by universities and public health authorities like the NIH and CDC of course, but a huge proportion of their budget comes from Big Pharma and big medical device companies. This is an open secret. A quick web-search will turn out plenty of articles that should give you reason to doubt their impartiality.
Here are just a few headlines: Forbes (Jun 28, 2018) “The Biopharmaceutical Industry Provides 75% Of the FDA's Drug Review Budget.”, or Science (Jul 5, 2018) “Hidden conflicts? Pharma payments to FDA advisers after drug approvals spark ethical concerns.”, or Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) (Sept 21, 2020) “CDC Compromised by Bias and Disturbing Conflicts of Interest.”
This is an excerpt from my up-and-coming booklet which will soon be off to the printers. If you like what you read please subscribe it’s only $5 a month.
Get my free ebook 7 Big Pharma Myths Debunked
Coach with me to reach your potential – book a Freedom Warrior consultation
Join my new community on locals.com
I will be discussing how to fix the dysfunctional healthcare system along with world leading economist Murray Sabrin biomedical research scientist James Lyons-Weiler - please sign up and join us!
The Economics of Healthcare and Wellness - Focus on Transformative Solutions (ipak-edu.org)