.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
-
Recently Browsing 0 members
- No registered users viewing this page.
Announcements
-
Topics
-
-
Latest posts...
-
-
118
Official: Trump Nominates RFK Jr. for Health Secretary
Here's an excellent example. -
2
Australian Businesswoman’s Condo in Pattaya Robbed: Over 3 Million Baht Stolen
Security were asleep no doubt, they are good like that -
72
Something smelling musky -- the age of undemocratic in your face oligarchy in the USA.
he's beyond the grief stage. he's in the rage stage. -
450
UK Pensioners in Thailand Face New Scrutiny Over Pension Fraud
This is not what you said in the original post. I did not doubt what you said just that to the question that you originally put I doubted that anybody could remember the date that they took out a phone contract. You have now changed the question that was actually put to you. You have now admitted that a different question was put to you one that mentions the last phone contract that you signed and not asking for the specific date but a range of dates. I would still like to know how the Government know when I have ever signed a phone contract and bearing in mind I currently have three phone contracts which one they would be referring to. -
118
Official: Trump Nominates RFK Jr. for Health Secretary
This is industry funding for countries health regulators. Light says the problem with drug regulators is widespread. Even the FDA—the most well funded regulator—reports 65% of its funding for the evaluation of drugs comes from industry user fees (table 1),9 and over the years user fees have expanded to generic drugs, biosimilars, and medical devices. “It’s the opposite of having a trustworthy organisation independently and rigorously assessing medicines. They’re not rigorous, they’re not independent, they are selective, and they withhold data. Doctors and patients must appreciate how deeply and extensively drug regulators can’t be trusted so long as they are captured by industry funding.” https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538 Sponsorship bias in clinical research Abstract Background: Pharmaceutical companies fund the vast majority of the clinical research that is undertaken on medications but face a conflict of interest between producing good science and results that will enhance the sales of their products. Objectives: To document concrete examples of bias in clinical research induced by pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. Methods: This paper uses a thematic approach to documenting the extent of these biases in the following areas: research question/topic, choice of doses and comparator agents, control over trial design and changes in protocols, early termination of clinical trials, reporting to regulatory authorities, reinterpretation of data, restrictions on publication rights, use of fake journals, journal supplements and symposia, ghostwriting, publication and reporting of results and outcomes. Results: Bias in favour of industry is apparent in every one of the themes examined with the result that research funded by industry undermines confidence in medical knowledge. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23135338/ -
2
Jake Paul vs. Mike Tyson - Hardly A Spectacle
Most comments on facebook and YouTube think it was staged. Just glad I wasn't a sucker to pay for it -
25
U.S. Senators Introduce Legislation to Counter UN Actions Against Israel
So? Doesn't change the fact of what I've posted before. Israel bombing schools, kindergartens, hospitals and refugee camps takes precedence over US hostages in my book! Having said that, as long as Hamas and Co. resort to acts of terrorism they're not gonna get what they want. But the US have supported Israel for long enough and have a history of turning a bild eye!
-
-
Popular in The Pub
-
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now