On 31 October 2010 21:07, <WJhonson(a)aol.com> wrote: Actually, I don't see what the manufacturer paying for a study has to do with anything. At least in North America, and I am fairly certain in other Western countries, new drugs will not be approved by the regulatory agencies *unless* they have undergone extensive study, both clinical and non-clinical, and which *must* be paid for by the manufacturer, and then subjected to peer review. The only exceptions of which I am aware are for vaccines and certain "orphan" drugs. Most facilities that conduct clinical trials of drugs insist on up-front payment of all costs so that precious health care dollars are not spent on these studies, which often require additional testing that would not ordinarily be carried out (more blood tests, medical imaging, other studies, for example). All clinical trials in all accredited healthcare facilities in North America are cleared through one or more Research Ethics Boards as well. So, saying that the manufacturer paid for a study insinuates that they have done something to affect the outcome of the study, whereas it is actually a requirement for them to pay for these studies in order to have the drugs considered for approval. It is the equivalent of automobile manufacturers having to pay to have their cars tested by various safety organizations. I don't think it is worth mentioning, unless every time it is mentioned it is done in a way to tell readers that this is not only normal, it is required. Risker/Anne