[Editor’s note: “Pharmagov” is a name I apply to a government and its regulatory institutions that is overly influenced by the pharmaceutical companies.]
Over the years it has bothered me that the massive amounts of funding provided by pharmaceutical companies for drug and medical research, [and agricultural companies for studies of foods, especially GMOs], have amassed a powerful influence over politicians, researchers and other scientists. The studies that emerge, if given close statistical scrutiny, often fail the test of a valid study, sometimes because of the overly influential role that corporate sponsors play through reputation or through funding. At other times, the lack of a valid control group ought to make us suspicious of the study outcomes. A control group is sometimes absent from studies on the grounds it would be unethical to deny access to the drugs or therapy specified by the experimental treatment.
Recently a bunch of studies was found to be wanting. Those studies can be considered questionable because of the influence that might have been brought to bear by companies selling sugary foods and sugary drinks. In my non-scientific interpretation: those studies are claiming that people are fat because they are lazy asses instead of because they are burning out their pancreases. The new claim is trying to convince audiences that it’s not the sugar, the high fructose that is to blame for rampant obesity. These studies would have you believe that it is behaving like a couch potato that makes people fat. Be careful with THAT conclusion. There is some truth to that. Calories in versus calories out, does matter. But if people are overtaxing their pancreas through sudden extreme overloading with sugary food or drinks, there is the matter of developing INSULIN RESISTANCE which this study is trying to downplay.
If you are not familiar with the important role that a low GLYCEMIC INDEX plays in protecting your pancreas, or,in other words the role that a steady, balanced insulin level plays in the health of cells and the entire body, versus the spike that comes from even small quantities of sugar or high fructose, then just Google: “glycemic index”, “insulin”, or even “insulin resistance” to learn more.
Part of the problem for possible confusion can likely be attributed to the massive amounts of dollars in funding by corporate sponsors and due to the statistical experts and study reviewers or overseers who compromise their ethics and morality.
When it comes to almost any study, especially those for new medications, frequently the moral high ground is increasingly being compromised.
An essential aspect of a good statistical study is a valid control group. Then in some studies, why is it that a control group is avoided? A control group refers to a group that is untreated and, therefore, useful as a comparison to the treated group. Then, after sufficient time, if the treated group fairs far better than the untreated group, you likely have a good outcome worthy of considering and TRUSTING.
Because the control group is “sometimes” missing or compromised in the study of vaccinations, I am suspicious of the many government advertisements encourage us to take the flu vaccination. [Recently jingles are airing to encouraging listeners to go take their shots. Really? The government is reverting back to 1950’s technique of jingles to influence a nation to go get their flu shots?] Nature and religious groups sometimes offer us spontaneous control groups. One example of a possible collection of control groups is presented by a group of doctors at this website: click here: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/quick-compare-2/
Eight doctors banded together to create that website to help inform doctors about some medications. Check it out for yourself: Click here to learn more about the website itself: http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/about/