WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

In a message dated 10/31/2010 9:38:37 PM Pacific Daylight Time, jayvdb@gmail.com writes:

...

On Mon, Nov 1, 2010 at 1:37 PM, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:

...

In a message dated 10/31/2010 7:10:10 PM Pacific Daylight Time, risker.wp@gmail.com writes:

...

My point still stands. The drug company *always* pays for the research. Mentioning it is irrelevant to the quality of the article itself.

This is false. The drug company does not always pay for research on a drug.

drug companies use a random chemical compound generator? >>

John, your response is a bit odd. What does a random chemical compound generator have to do whatsoever with who funded a study? It's a complete non-sequitor.

I believe that his point is that drug companies do their own research into new drugs, pay for the clinical trials, and pay to bring it to market. That is where the upfront costs are. Subsequently other companies may generate research purporting that their formulation is better, other company may refute that etc. Perhaps some study reports that their are some long term affects or whatever.

At the end of the day the FDA, NIHCE or some body will make a decision on the evidence available. If a company has suppressed information they are probably DOOMED, up shit creek without a paddle, in for heavy fines and payouts of $millions in compensation.

In the meanwhile wikipedia editors playing some funding game which confuses the issue, or gives antagonists a hook to hang their POV off is not helpful. In fact it probably just increases the work load on those trying to maintain a NPOV in the relevant articles.