In the 5 and 1/2 years I spent in Pharmacy school, people are shocked when I tell them we spent a grand total of 15 minutes "learning" to read prescriptions. It is all about knowing what you are looking for, and of course being familiar with the prescriber.
One thing we did spend sufficient time learning from some pretty smart professor…
In the 5 and 1/2 years I spent in Pharmacy school, people are shocked when I tell them we spent a grand total of 15 minutes "learning" to read prescriptions. It is all about knowing what you are looking for, and of course being familiar with the prescriber.
One thing we did spend sufficient time learning from some pretty smart professors was how to read clinical research and incorporation into a "study."
A lot of it is seeing what they didn't put in it, rather than what they did. Often this can lead to easier identification of what is most likely mis-interpreted or fraudulent data.
It never hurts to see who is funding it as well.
You must have the raw data for proper analysis, often lacking without additional research.
Also helpful is background data on the researchers themselves, to get a feel for what type of work they do or are actually qualified to do.
This revolving door between the FDA and Big Pharma has led to a system where then ends, big profits, justify the means, total lack of oversight or any "moral" compass.
It is like I said, Big Pharma makes the "Deep State" ("THE STATE") look like rank amateurs in comparison, but they are getting sloppy, and careless, and simply DO NOT CARE.
Excellent points. And I generally start with the conflicts of interest section, and the look into research background(s) prior to reading most studies.
One of my professors told us to first read it like it was honest effort to check for "errors or omissions." Then check out the obvious conflicts and think about how would you "hot rod" it for potential profit. We would even re-write parts for those purposes and occasionally even get grades on it. One of my professors approached me before class, my paper in his hand, "Brilliant" he said, "I even called my former fellow researcher who exclaimed "Why didn't we think of that?' and it left both of us laughing."
Now this was in the 70s, which means they were already doing it in the 60s.
Ha! These changed the definition on that: recent study conflicts of interest section: 'No conflicts of interest were reported that would interfere with the (I'm slightly paraphrasing, don't have it in front of me) outcomes of the study. (All study authors are employed by pfizer.)' Also I've noticed conflicts of interests statements completely missing or invisible where they are commonly found. I don't know if you've read my piece of magnolia, but more safety profiling has been done on it than the the v.
Exactly. The raw data is almost never available, which is what makes it ironically NOT science. Science is about repeatability of results by outside third parties multiple times. When has this happened before approval of a profitable product in the medical industry? The comments section the NJEM is so upsetting to read, I generally cannot because it is so dissonant with the study. And the things they study are often rather non-relevant compared to what impacts most people's lives and what they could be studying if the goal was health, wellness for all. I think there scientists who try to do their best within the system just as their are pharmacists who do their best within the system, but as far as I can tell all the journals have the mob either at the back or literally backing them. I think the British Medical Journal has the best leadership within the last ten years and manages to publish some good things along with some party-line stuff.
If someone wanted to create some legislation, it would make "proprietary" not legally applicable to products that can be prescribed or mandated and would make it a criminal sin with obligatory jail time to put shareholder interest before safety and transparency around efficacy would be a legal obligation, including providing accessible, reader-friendly yet accurate materials to providers that they would in turn be necessitated to offer to patients.
In the 5 and 1/2 years I spent in Pharmacy school, people are shocked when I tell them we spent a grand total of 15 minutes "learning" to read prescriptions. It is all about knowing what you are looking for, and of course being familiar with the prescriber.
One thing we did spend sufficient time learning from some pretty smart professors was how to read clinical research and incorporation into a "study."
A lot of it is seeing what they didn't put in it, rather than what they did. Often this can lead to easier identification of what is most likely mis-interpreted or fraudulent data.
It never hurts to see who is funding it as well.
You must have the raw data for proper analysis, often lacking without additional research.
Also helpful is background data on the researchers themselves, to get a feel for what type of work they do or are actually qualified to do.
This revolving door between the FDA and Big Pharma has led to a system where then ends, big profits, justify the means, total lack of oversight or any "moral" compass.
It is like I said, Big Pharma makes the "Deep State" ("THE STATE") look like rank amateurs in comparison, but they are getting sloppy, and careless, and simply DO NOT CARE.
Excellent points. And I generally start with the conflicts of interest section, and the look into research background(s) prior to reading most studies.
One of my professors told us to first read it like it was honest effort to check for "errors or omissions." Then check out the obvious conflicts and think about how would you "hot rod" it for potential profit. We would even re-write parts for those purposes and occasionally even get grades on it. One of my professors approached me before class, my paper in his hand, "Brilliant" he said, "I even called my former fellow researcher who exclaimed "Why didn't we think of that?' and it left both of us laughing."
Now this was in the 70s, which means they were already doing it in the 60s.
Ha! These changed the definition on that: recent study conflicts of interest section: 'No conflicts of interest were reported that would interfere with the (I'm slightly paraphrasing, don't have it in front of me) outcomes of the study. (All study authors are employed by pfizer.)' Also I've noticed conflicts of interests statements completely missing or invisible where they are commonly found. I don't know if you've read my piece of magnolia, but more safety profiling has been done on it than the the v.
Exactly. The raw data is almost never available, which is what makes it ironically NOT science. Science is about repeatability of results by outside third parties multiple times. When has this happened before approval of a profitable product in the medical industry? The comments section the NJEM is so upsetting to read, I generally cannot because it is so dissonant with the study. And the things they study are often rather non-relevant compared to what impacts most people's lives and what they could be studying if the goal was health, wellness for all. I think there scientists who try to do their best within the system just as their are pharmacists who do their best within the system, but as far as I can tell all the journals have the mob either at the back or literally backing them. I think the British Medical Journal has the best leadership within the last ten years and manages to publish some good things along with some party-line stuff.
If someone wanted to create some legislation, it would make "proprietary" not legally applicable to products that can be prescribed or mandated and would make it a criminal sin with obligatory jail time to put shareholder interest before safety and transparency around efficacy would be a legal obligation, including providing accessible, reader-friendly yet accurate materials to providers that they would in turn be necessitated to offer to patients.