So you are alleging that all statin trials have been falsified? My eyes are INVOLVED IN THESE TRIALS. Yours are involved in reading the headlines on the Internet. Your argument is so ludicrous it's not worth talking about.
Get involved in the work, get you graduate degrees and come join the work.View Thread
You are all over the place. You should just stick to dissecting coffee bean extract research that is limited to 16 people which is what you based this whole thread on, remember? You just do not have a grasp on the process of trials and studies and want to cling to conspiracy theories, old, old mantra.
Again, to anyone else that may be watching, I am the type of research annalist the Feds hire to validate the data collected. I'm not educated on the Internet, I know the processes and how things work from the inside working in the industry. It is INCREDILBY easy to catch bad data, falsified numbers and overstated results. It just does not happen with any kind of regularity, it is extremely, extremely rare. The reason is simple, there are in some cases billions of dollars of R&D money as well as careers on the line. I don't care how many little sayings people post to illustrate their point, it doesn't happen on the mega trials and all these side conspiracies are just a bunch of hot air.
Nobody puts billions and billions of research dollars at risk by falsifying trial results, that's just common sense Bobby.
Again, to anyone else reading this thread, I am the kind of guy the FDA pays to review and validate data. It is very, very easy to find discrepancies, no drug company is going to risk their research and development money on something as tightly regulated and reviewed as a major drug trial. What some people don't understand is the amount of up front money that would be lost if these trials were deemed invalid because of falsified data, it just does not happen. Where drug companies get themselves in trouble is pushing unapproved off label uses and marketing transgressions, both of which are unacceptable, but not in publishing bad trial data.
Sorry, you'll have to do better than comparing a backyard paper based on some nutritionist's paid-for opinion on 16 people using a coffee bean extract to lose weight, paid for by the guy making it that suckered a T.V. doctor to a fully regulated statin study.
Remember, the FDA pays guys like me to pick apart these people's work, I don't see the comparison and I'm not required to answer questions I consider useless and unnecessary, ask some one else.
Wow................. If you really understand, why would you make this comparison? You are comparing some "independent nutritionist's" write up on his observation of 16 (yes, only 16) people of some supplement that for all we know somebody mixed in an old bathtub in the garage to a federally regulated statin trial, is that what you meant to do?
To answer your question, yes I think when there are hundreds of millions of research dollars at risk, a prospectus that has to be presented to the NIH complete with research hypothesis and goals along with collection protocol and an assigned independent Data Safety Management Board to review all data collected for accuracy and truthfulness, not to mention careers being placed at risk, I think people tend to be more honest than the guy paying some nutritionist to say some nice things about his supplement.