You Can Trust Science! Honest! (atheist, agnostics, suicide, Islam)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Every now and then we get one of these people who claims that Christians just use faith-based systems, and agnostics/atheists put their faith in science, which only deal in evidence.
After looking at 74 studies involving 12 drugs and over 12,000 people, they discovered that 37 of 38 trials with positive results were published, while only 14 of 36 negative studies were published. Those that showed negative results were, in the words of the researchers, “published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome.”
That means the results were twisted to imply the drugs worked when they didn’t.
This isn’t just a problem with antidepressants. It’s a problem with scientific research. Some drug companies even pay or threaten scientists to not publish negative results on their drugs. So much for “evidence-based” medicine!
This is just on antidepressants. You will find a similar result about a great many medical/historical/other theories getting swept under the rug when they don't jive with popular science.
Oh my, there seem to be about 57,300,000 results! I guess there is no evidence there.
The difference being there is a different language of evidence. Religion uses logic and philosophy not proofs and formulas. But this doesn't make it less valid. If an argument makes sense, it can generally be believed to be on par with a theory (maybe not a law, but enough that the average person can say "this may be true"). If an argument defies logic, btw, even if it is testable in a lab, one should consider whether the experiment is done correctly! If I proved in a lab something completely illogical like that certain people could fly, it wouldn't matter how often I "prove" this, any real scientist would scoff; likewise, scientists must be able to be accountable to standards of reason, and not just depend on "repeatable" results that are based on popular notions.
Every now and then we get one of these people who claims that Christians just use faith-based systems, and agnostics/atheists put their faith in science, which only deal in evidence.
If I ever need any demolition done, remind me not to call you.
This article references drug "studies" done by pharmaceutical companies. It is a well known fact that commercial enterprises are not objective. That is why tobacco companies published "research" that "proved" smoking was harmless. That is why the fossil fuel industry published "research" "proving" that climate change was a hoax and/or not related to human activity.
Try to learn the difference between people being paid to force outcomes and those doing actual science.
If I ever need any demolition done, remind me not to call you.
This article references drug "studies" done by pharmaceutical companies. It is a well known fact that commercial enterprises are not objective. That is why tobacco companies published "research" that "proved" smoking was harmless. That is why the fossil fuel industry published "research" "proving" that climate change was a hoax and/or not related to human activity.
Try to learn the difference between people being paid to force outcomes and those doing actual science.
And don't forget about the Oil and Gas Industry who funded this scientist (Clair Cameron Patterson) until he discovered that lead was dangerous and it was coming from gas. He was shunned and even kicked off the National Research Council. He fought the Oil and Gas industry for 20 years...yes 20 years to get them to remove lead from gas.
Quote:
Beginning in 1965, with the publication of Contaminated and Natural Lead Environments of Man, Patterson tried to draw public attention to the problem of increased lead levels in the environment and the food chain from lead from industrial sources. Perhaps partly because he was criticizing the experimental methods of other scientists, he encountered strong opposition from recognized experts, such as Robert A. Kehoe.
In his effort to ensure that lead was removed from gasoline (petrol), Patterson fought against the lobbying power of the Ethyl Corporation (which employed Kehoe), against the legacy of Thomas Midgley, Jr. (which included tetraethyllead and chlorofluorocarbons); and against the lead additive industry as a whole. Following Patterson's criticism of the lead industry, he was refused contracts with many research organizations, including the supposedly neutral United States Public Health Service.
In 1971, he was excluded from a National Research Council (NRC) panel on atmospheric lead contamination even though he was then the foremost expert on the subject
Yep industry scientists vs. ethical scientists are two different cats.
After looking at 74 studies involving 12 drugs and over 12,000 people, they discovered that 37 of 38 trials with positive results were published, while only 14 of 36 negative studies were published. Those that showed negative results were, in the words of the researchers, “published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome.”
That means the results were twisted to imply the drugs worked when they didn’t.
This isn’t just a problem with antidepressants. It’s a problem with scientific research. Some drug companies even pay or threaten scientists to not publish negative results on their drugs. So much for “evidence-based” medicine!
...
Other than what mordant said,
Where were any of the studies that showed no "negative" nor positive results what so ever?
More likely, the studies deemed "negative" are simply labeled that way by your source in order to spread propaganda. The "negative" studies most likely simply showed that the vague "anti-represent" in question in every particular different study had near ZERO effect whatsoever and thus the Scientists in question felt "righteously" no need to publish about those "no-effect" antidepressants, since they felt no need to try to change the status quo or annoy the status quo with a paper that said "look here, I have nothing." Corporations such as pharmaceutical companies these days should understand that if they "hide" any important information that they found out, and later it is released that they did know, they can and will be majorly sued, and will loose tons of money either in settlements or in court.
Regardless, there are corporate, social, and other pressures that influence scientists (especially private corporation ones or government-related ones in a government controlled by powerful monied interests) to keep quiet about information that should be spread.
I think I've even read that most antidepressants don't actually work on (or against) the brain's depression mechanisms but simply allow a brain to "change." One would think that if you are taking these psychiatry drugs you would also need to consistently meet with a good psychologist to guide you through the "change." I believe that is what most studies support as well.
Furthermore, no one should have "faith" in science, it's just a human-managed institution, just like religion is also just a human-managed institution. Science welcomes skepticism, criticism, and progress... unlike most religions one can think of that often simply implant themselves as part of a conservative counter-culture.
One should "trust" in science as much as they trust in knowledge and technology handled by humans. There is as much evidence for Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, etc as people seek to find. Science focuses on the "evidence" against it's current beliefs.
There is also a lot of hard-working pseudoscience out there. One needs to take everything with a grain of salt and always look positively at the evidence against.
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 05-13-2016 at 10:00 PM..
Every now and then we get one of these people who claims that Christians just use faith-based systems, and agnostics/atheists put their faith in science, which only deal in evidence.
This is just on antidepressants. You will find a similar result about a great many medical/historical/other theories getting swept under the rug when they don't jive with popular science.
I only looked at this part, which was enough for me to be honest.
The conclusion being made by the study (done by scientists, in case that irony is lost on you) showed that the FDA primarily published studies that show favorable results of certain drugs, while not necessarily publishing the ones that showed negative results. This conclusion was made, again, by scientists, and you are using this to discredit... science.
Walk me through what I'm missing. There's a valid criticism of the FDA and corporate pharmaceutical companies looking to turn a profit, but what exactly is the criticism of the field of science? Which, by the way, is claiming that anti-depressant do not work, which did not come from a scientific study. It shares results of how two groups, one given a sugar pill (placebo) and another given actual anti-depressants saw 40% in the placebo group have fewer symptoms, while 60% had fewer symptoms in the anti-depressant group, and the Huffpost article said made this about 60% not needing the anti-depressants, despite that same percentage in another group benefiting from it. I have no idea where these numbers came from either. The Huff post article only links to the one study that basically just says the FDA is censoring some of it's data, and only briefly mentions the studies of placebos, saying quite clearly that these studies, having not been repeated enough, do not provide sufficient evidence to say that anti-depressants do not work.
Want to talk about bad industry just look up the FDA's cover up of Bayer's Cutter Biological division, who was knowingly producing HIV and Hepatitis contaminated haemophilia blood products. It's the most disturbing information I have ever come across as a medical professional.
I watched a documentary about it and the FDA was well aware that these contaminated products were still being sold overseas after the cat got out of the bag here in the US.
It was the most disturbing documentary I have ever seen.
Want to talk about bad industry just look up the FDA's cover up of Bayer's Cutter Biological division, who was knowingly producing HIV and Hepatitis contaminated haemophilia blood products. It's the most disturbing information I have ever come across as a medical professional.
I watched a documentary about it and the FDA was well aware that these contaminated products were still being sold overseas after the cat got out of the bag here in the US.
It was the most disturbing documentary I have ever seen.
They probably thought, "since the government doesn't care what or who our contaminated trash hurts once it's over-seas... then who cares... our bottom line is government funding."
...
thus the Scientists in question felt "righteously" no need to publish about those "no-effect" antidepressants, since they felt no need to try to change the status quo or annoy the status quo with a paper that said "look here, I have nothing."
...
Apparently "the scientists in question" were top-level publishing deciders of the FDA?
Last edited by LuminousTruth; 05-14-2016 at 12:07 AM..
They probably thought, "since the government doesn't care what or who our contaminated trash hurts once it's over-seas... then who cares... our bottom line is government funding."
US companies are profit driven which means they only care about short term gains no matter who or what they destroy in the process.
This mentality is what will erode us as a civilization...not just here but globally.
Before we skin bulmabriefs144 alive let's acknowledge that there is a problem. This antidepressant issue is a little too close to home for me to ignore. My son (my late son) was put on antidepressants that pushed him over the edge! When they made him worse - suicidal - he called in and was told to increase the dose! This led to a complete break down. One from which he never fully recovered.
A while after his suicide I looked up this drug and it stated quite clearly that if any adverse conditions were noted that one should stop the medication immediately. Was this a later update in the contra-indications or was it negligence on the part of the practitioners? I suspect the former but cannot be sure. The point being that antidepressants are dangerous drugs and I suspect they are being pushed onto an unsuspecting medical profession and public without sufficient evaluation.
So what is the problem? As stated already, corporations paying for the desired outcome!
I have been put on drugs that had not been fully evaluated with negative end results. I nearly had a break down! I noticed that the contra-indications have been updated to state not for long term use. I wasn't the only one with long term use problems!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
