2. ta članek poznam in nikjer v njem ni niti trohlice govora o kakršnem koli "zavajanju" s strani strokovnjakov, ki so svetovali WHO
3. članek govori le o tem, da vodstvo WHO ni razkrilo določenih morebitnih konfliktov interesov med nekaterimi njihovimi svetovalci in nekaterimi farmacevtskimi firmami.
Ne vem zakaj nekateri preprosto ne morejo spoznati, da je farmacija cista ko suza in stalno iscejo dlako v jajcu.
Poleg tega so dali hujevci castno pionirsko, da je bilo vse po pravilih.
In sedaj bodo v potrditev, se sami sebe preiskali in to potrdili.
Ne vem od kod jemljejo nekateri take maliciozne insinuacije.
[url="http://www.pharmatimes.com/ClinicalNews/article.aspx?id=17831"]
German review finds strong bias in industry-funded trials [/url]
The outcomes of clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies, or whose authors have financial conflicts of interest, “far more frequently” favour the sponsoring company’s products than when the study funding comes from other sources, a systematic review by German researchers has concluded.
Study Sees a Slant in Articles on Drug
A new analysis of reviews and articles about the controversial diabetes drug Avandia has found that experts who were paid by its manufacturer have been significantly more likely than others to draw positive conclusions about the drug’s safety and efficacy.
Scientists With Ties To Industry More Likely To Write Nice things about drugs
Medical authors with ties to diabetes drug makers were more likely to publish favourable articles on a controversial diabetes medication than authors who had no such ties, a new study reveals.
Over 90 per cent of scientists who wrote positively about the drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) in studies, commentaries and letters published in medical journals had financial relationships with drug companies, said the study, written by researchers from the department of internal medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.
3. članek govori le o tem, da vodstvo WHO ni razkrilo določenih morebitnih konfliktov interesov med nekaterimi njihovimi svetovalci in nekaterimi farmacevtskimi firmami.
Ne vem zakaj nekateri preprosto ne morejo spoznati, da je farmacija cista ko suza in stalno iscejo dlako v jajcu.
Poleg tega so dali hujevci castno pionirsko, da je bilo vse po pravilih.
In sedaj bodo v potrditev, se sami sebe preiskali in to potrdili.
Ne vem od kod jemljejo nekateri take maliciozne insinuacije.
[url="http://www.pharmatimes.com/ClinicalNews/article.aspx?id=17831"]
German review finds strong bias in industry-funded trials [/url]
The outcomes of clinical trials funded by pharmaceutical companies, or whose authors have financial conflicts of interest, “far more frequently” favour the sponsoring company’s products than when the study funding comes from other sources, a systematic review by German researchers has concluded.
Study Sees a Slant in Articles on Drug
A new analysis of reviews and articles about the controversial diabetes drug Avandia has found that experts who were paid by its manufacturer have been significantly more likely than others to draw positive conclusions about the drug’s safety and efficacy.
Scientists With Ties To Industry More Likely To Write Nice things about drugs
Medical authors with ties to diabetes drug makers were more likely to publish favourable articles on a controversial diabetes medication than authors who had no such ties, a new study reveals.
Over 90 per cent of scientists who wrote positively about the drug Avandia (rosiglitazone) in studies, commentaries and letters published in medical journals had financial relationships with drug companies, said the study, written by researchers from the department of internal medicine at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn.