ERD50
Give me a museum and I'll fill it. (Picasso) Give me a forum ...
The study was funded by Abbott, which makes a prescription niacin product.
I was also surprised by Rich's comment, though I know a lot of people have this reaction.
If you are looking for a "disinterested" third party to spend a lot of money on a study like this, I think that, by definition, they won't have much interest in doing that So we often have to rely on studies funded by "interested" parties.
I used to get "white papers" from companies trying to get me to approve purchase their products for use by the mega-corp I was with. They were useful, and the sales rep knew we were looking for info relevant to our application, not a sales pitch. And they knew we would challenge the assumptions, test conditions, financial payback numbers etc. We took it all (and any data we get) with a grain of salt. But it was still useful to us - for example, if they claimed it could do "2X" under what we assumed would be favorable conditions, and we already knew we could achive "3X" for less cost, no need to look further.
So what is the alternative? No data at all? Should we not allow any industry studies at all? Do we rely on the FDA to test everything that might have interest for us? Will they be considered a "disinterested" third party after HC reform? Are they now?
Now, I will suggest one reform for these kinds of pharma studies - the pharma should have to publicly register the details of the proposed study prior to undertaking it, and then make the results public, good or bad. Right now, as I understand it, they can run 100 studies, and just publish the ones favorable to them, and we never know. There should be some transparent "clearing house" to collate all the relevant studies so that the pharma can't just cherry-pick what they want.
For me, this is the same as news from the media - I don't care so much what the source is, but they better back up their statements - facts are facts, regardless the source.
-ERD50
That little factoid assures the article will pass from my mailbox to my trash can.
How often does one find a study that hasn't either been funded by an interested party, or designed and run by investigators who regularly get funding from interested parties?
Ha
I was also surprised by Rich's comment, though I know a lot of people have this reaction.
If you are looking for a "disinterested" third party to spend a lot of money on a study like this, I think that, by definition, they won't have much interest in doing that So we often have to rely on studies funded by "interested" parties.
I used to get "white papers" from companies trying to get me to approve purchase their products for use by the mega-corp I was with. They were useful, and the sales rep knew we were looking for info relevant to our application, not a sales pitch. And they knew we would challenge the assumptions, test conditions, financial payback numbers etc. We took it all (and any data we get) with a grain of salt. But it was still useful to us - for example, if they claimed it could do "2X" under what we assumed would be favorable conditions, and we already knew we could achive "3X" for less cost, no need to look further.
So what is the alternative? No data at all? Should we not allow any industry studies at all? Do we rely on the FDA to test everything that might have interest for us? Will they be considered a "disinterested" third party after HC reform? Are they now?
Now, I will suggest one reform for these kinds of pharma studies - the pharma should have to publicly register the details of the proposed study prior to undertaking it, and then make the results public, good or bad. Right now, as I understand it, they can run 100 studies, and just publish the ones favorable to them, and we never know. There should be some transparent "clearing house" to collate all the relevant studies so that the pharma can't just cherry-pick what they want.
For me, this is the same as news from the media - I don't care so much what the source is, but they better back up their statements - facts are facts, regardless the source.
-ERD50