Researching Research Fraud

Hi all, this is a long shot, but I am attempting to find a particular case where a CEO pressured a lead researcher to publish false data in order to push along the sale of some pharmaceuticals, which coincidentally(supposedly) lead to the death of many Americans. However, I can't seem to find any information on it after some googling.

If anyone can help that would be great, also any other instances of where economic powers(corporations) have used science as a way to imply a false truth for profit, and coincidentally, harm to individuals.

And for anyone wondering, I am trying to write something for sociology!

I have come across this

www.onlineuniversities.com...

Which gives you an idea of what I'm looking for. Alas, I shall continue my research.

a reply to: WorShip

I doubt you will find hard evidence that a CEO pressured researchers, they tend to cover their tracks well. But you can find lots of research fraud. I'd start with Merck and Vioxx. Also search Marcia Angel, the former lead editor for NEJM for quotes on fraud in medical research. The former lead editor for the Lancet has some things to say about it (can't remember his name off hand). Finally William Thompson senior researcher at the CDC, is on record (and by on record, I mean a recorded phone conversation, he is still waiting to be subpoenaed to Congress to share this atrocity) stating that they were required to burn evidence showing a vaccine caused a 400% increase in incidence of autism in black boys.

On Wakefield in the link you posted, his "fraud" has been misconstrued. His article stated in common terms (what is considered normal for research) that a link appeared evident and more research should follow. Nothing outrageous as has been repeated ad naseum. The research was not fraudulent, it was his conclusions which again were within reason for the study that caused the outrage. Because as we all know vaccines are safe and effective, no matter what any other evidence shows (sarcasm since there have been almost no double blind placebo controlled trials of vaccines performed, and no long term studies, except epidemiological observations, which are not the best evidence).

If anyone can help that would be great, also any other instances of where economic powers(corporations) have used science as a way to imply a false truth for profit, and coincidentally, harm to individuals.

the obvious ones are the tobacco companies, andrew wakefield took mucho money to lie about vaccines being harmful helping the anti vaxx movement and inadvertently killing people, exxon mobil and the koch brothers both fund the climate change denial and both are deep inside the republican party, see rex tillerson.

the only harmful medicine i can think of being pushed off the top of my head would be thalidomide.

originally posted by: growler

If anyone can help that would be great, also any other instances of where economic powers(corporations) have used science as a way to imply a false truth for profit, and coincidentally, harm to individuals.

the obvious ones are the tobacco companies, andrew wakefield took mucho money to lie about vaccines being harmful helping the anti vaxx movement and inadvertently killing people, exxon mobil and the koch brothers both fund the climate change denial and both are deep inside the republican party, see rex tillerson.

the only harmful medicine i can think of being pushed off the top of my head would be thalidomide.

There's this video of the tobacco company CEO's testifying that none of the research that had done, had proved that tobacco was addictive:



They got off that one because they said they "believed" rather than "knew" or "had researched"

originally posted by: WorShip
Hi all, this is a long shot, but I am attempting to find a particular case where a CEO pressured a lead researcher to publish false data in order to push along the sale of some pharmaceuticals, which coincidentally(supposedly) lead to the death of many Americans. However, I can't seem to find any information on it after some googling.

If anyone can help that would be great, also any other instances of where economic powers(corporations) have used science as a way to imply a false truth for profit, and coincidentally, harm to individuals.

And for anyone wondering, I am trying to write something for sociology!

I have come across this

www.onlineuniversities.com...

Which gives you an idea of what I'm looking for. Alas, I shall continue my research.

Things like that happen all the time, but this is scientists chasing other scientists. While scientists often agree with each other in a consensus, they tend to villify other scientists who are outside the consensus or have disagreement in cause and effect in that consensus. The climate, 'debate' (well...some say it's not a debate, and demand that people see the science as settled) is a perfect example of that, yet you only have to look round you to see the inconsistencies in the way that governments behave when it comes to the climate 'warnings' they sign up for this that protocol, yet, like the UK parliament, there is no bother in consenting to a new runway for Heathrow for instance in one of the most populous cities in the West, while aircraft plumes, it is agreed, (eventually) have a net warming effect, as well as clouding while nobody is shouting much about that, just a murmur here and there.

You said, 'pressured' that's a key word and it happens all the time, fraudulent or not.

Good thread btw.

a reply to: stormcell

Re: tobacco company fraud.

It is NOT the tobacco company that committed fraud. It is the surgeon general's report of 1988 that CHANGED the medical definition of addiction.

Prior to 1988, at the time when tobacco companies were doing research on nicotine, tobacco was considered to be "habit-forming" like coffee.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

In January 1964, the SGAC published its report Smoking and Health.12 Best known for its strong statements on cancer, the report also described tobacco as causing “habituation” rather than “addiction.” It used verbatim definitions from the WHO published in 1957,13 in which “drug addiction” involved intoxication, an overpowering desire to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means, a tendency to increase the dose to maintain the effect (tolerance), and a psychological and physical dependence on the drug, with adverse effects on both the individual and society. “Drug habituation” did not include intoxication, tolerance, or physical withdrawal symptoms, and it focused on detrimental effects to the individual. It characterized the urge to use a drug as “a desire” but “not a compulsion” for the “sense of improved well-being which it engenders.”12,13 The WHO revised its definition in 1964, dropping the habituation–addiction split and replacing it with the single term “dependence.”

Note that under the old definition of addiction, only about 5 substances were actually considered "addictive", under the 1988 change in the definition of addiction that now included habituation, EVERYTHING that brings pleasure to a human being, influencing the pleasure of the brain, is now included as addictive

The new definition of addiction now includes COFFEE, SEX, RUNNING, SHOPPING, CHEESE, SUGAR and so on and so. Nobody behaves badly now and are responsible for their behavior. EVERYONE has the excuse of being addicted to something. Get caught with 2 teenage girls in a hotel room? You are not responsible and this behavior is no reflection on your character, you are, in fact, addicted to sex and are now in "treatment".

This change in definition was political gold for anti-smoking activists. They immediately took the tobacco company's testimony out of context and claimed that they "lied" and were evil.

This all fit into the desired public image that anti-smokers were "David fighting against evil Goliath", were grass-root hero's, corporations are evil and corrupt and government is weak and incompetant. The only ones the public could trust was the anti-smokers!

a reply to: WorShip

Look up that global warming research center in England that got hacked and had their internal emails leaked.

If I remember correctly, it was 2009, and many emails were found to be from one admin to another researcher where they were instructing their scientists to falsify data to make it match up with their bogus prediction.

originally posted by: ColdWisdom
a reply to: WorShip

Look up that global warming research center in England that got hacked and had their internal emails leaked.

If I remember correctly, it was 2009, and many emails were found to be from one admin to another researcher where they were instructing their scientists to falsify data to make it match up with their bogus prediction.

That was ClimateGate

www.theguardian.com...

For a Pharma company to force a researcher to publish fake information is rare. They usually do deception in different ways than that. It rarely happens but not too often

What happens continually by some pharma companies is to only test for things that they know the medicine will not cause. The researcher has to test what he is told to test, nothing else. If he tests outside the parameters he will get fired. This way they structure the evidence to exclude a lot of potential side effects.

The FDA only requires to test for known side effects. These parameters were set up with the aid of Pharma companies. If a researcher goes out and tests for something not listed in the parameters, He or she can get fired. I understand that some of this is necessary, but this is abused way too often. The researcher may not even be aware they are being controlled.

There are other commonly used ways to corrupt or steer the testing but most time it is legal. The FDA top governance is entangled with the Pharma company management. WHO is looking into this, the FDA is not. There has to be more examination of the side effects, many times the side effects are worse than the risk or problems associated with what they are treating. But our rules that govern Pharma are not always in the best interest of the patient.

Look at our medical staff we use in America, it is the staff of Hermies not the staff of medicine. It is all about building business.

I have to say though, there are some good pharmaceutical companies out there, some are not corrupt. There are great doctors out there too, not all are trying to promote the medical business. You cannot throw all Pharma or doctors into corruption designation. Sometimes doctors send you for unneeded tests just to supply work for technicians, they are trying to look out for the continued employment of medical workers, but this policy is causing high insurance costs. I can see both sides of the issue, that is why I would prefer socialized medicine and boosting our manufacturing so not so many people would be working in medicine.

I suggest reading Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Pharma'. He covers some shenanigans over recent times.

I'd also check out David Healy's blog (a psychiatrist in the UK). He's been covering some of the related shadiness surrounding clinical trials for SSRIs.

Outside of pharma, I'd definitely suggest reading Naomi Oreskes' book 'Merchants of Doubt'. She covers many areas from tobacco to climate change denial. A fantastic insight into the techniques used by corporations to subvert science for $$$$.

An ongoing situation is the vaginal mesh stuff which is currently focused on a class action lawsuit for patients in Australia. Pretty damning information coming into the public arena (e.g., ob-gyns guided to tell patients to go for anal - a hole's a hole, right?).

Apart from tobacco, unlikely you'll find something linking a CEO to this, though. Just typical corporate BS really.

a reply to: melatonin

Naomi Oreskes is a typical propagandist, dressing up historical words that she frames in out-of-context manner, in a white coat to support abuse of law type actions that lobbiest want to undertake. Her job is to sway public opinion and she does it in the shadiest manner possible.

She just did an assination piece on Exxon Mobile. The link leads to an article that lays bare the type of propaganda she writes and exactly how she does it. This link includes historical documents that provide accurate context to the words of Exxon Mobile.

wattsupwiththat.com...

The study concludes that what executives discussed in private was different to their public position. But lets think about this claim from a rational perspective. Exxon scientists like Henry Shaw were saying that climate might cause between 1.3 – 3.1C warming / doubling of CO2. A lot of this material was published – so in no sense was it “hidden”, other than use of annoying paywalls which a well funded science journalist could afford – just like the paywalls alarmist climate scientists frequently use to help fund their work. The key point is that the science IS uncertain. 1.3 – 3.1C is a huge range of uncertainty.

As previously pointed out, Naomi Oreskes used the same tactic against the tobacco companies. Taking words out of historical context (ie change in the medical definition of "addictive" and "habitating".

The book against the tobacco company was written to support the lobbiest trying to sue the tobacco companies, just like the "study" on Exxon Mobile was for the purpose of supporting the proposed RICO case.

She is nothing more than a publicist trying to shape public opinion negatively against companies she is paid to smear.

originally posted by: TiredofControlFreaks
She is nothing more than a publicist trying to shape public opinion negatively against companies she is paid to smear.

No, she is an academic historian of science. Probably the perfect academic for the OP to use given their topic and her expertise.

Sure there's enough threads elsewhere for you to ejaculate your climate denialism all over (:

a reply to: melatonin

I am allowed to speak on any post I please. As you are allowed to spew biased poison as "truth" on any post you please.

There are people who don't agree with your hypothesis of global warming. Deal with it

There is this...

Purdue Pharm and parent Company fined 600 million over OxyContin

Three Execs were included in the judgement, a president, a cheif lawyer and their chief MD.
Lying scumbags are responsioble for the current crisis in both our countries.

And even more disgusting news about these scumbags...

The settlement in Canada is disgusting and shows that both this company and their ilk as well as our own governments really don't a damn about the people.

Wow, thanks for all the help guys. I ended up using Thalidomide as an example, and it was fairly restricted in length.. However, it was interesting trying to pinpoint the factors that led to such a dystopian reality we have. I alluded to the concept of "real competition" in capitalism which pits all against all in a frenzy of profit, the social stratification that results in elite economic powers, bound up in a protective barrier of law, whom operate under the guise of science and truth in order to extract wealth from the lower-class.


The research shall continue

a reply to: WorShip

if extracting cash from working class is of interest - perhaps check the research on state gambling mechanisms, lol.

Most science points out it is aimed at the poors. But is protected by government laws and initiated by same governments in many countries (:

Gawd knows why? :/

Maybe given they tend to be poorly educated, they also have a poor understanding of what winning at probability of 1 in 14,000,000 actually means...

However, again, tobacco may be most pertinent. Most tobacco companies are known to now target their nefarious methods at third world countries.