James Warren wrote:
Dogman wrote:

http://blog.ted.com/2012/09/27/5-pre...heir-patients/

"'Drugs are tested by the people who manufacture them, in poorly
designed trials ...

This is why the government, not the drug companies, should test drugs.

To the extent that funding is avaialble they do. Professors in endowed
chairs at private universities do so as well. One of the ways that
science works is because of these mechanisms reality always comes
through. Eventually. In the case of medicine the relative funding and
activity levels can and do push through nonsense for a while. If your
time scale is centuries it's all just transients in the current stance
of science. None of us who have any medical issue can wait centuries.
We have seen issues come out on a time scale of decades. Still too slow
for anyone with medical issues.

If drug companies are to do it then they should be closely monitored and
all results published.

They already are as closely monitored as relative funding allows. You
will notice that Dr Atkins funded a foundation to conduct private
research, which is yet another route in addition to government and
endowed chairs that science checks itself. I don't have any answer that
would not slow the progress of medical science.

Rather than "published" I think you really mean "made public". Articles
get published in peer reviewed journals and now on line as well.
There's the problem that private industry should be able to retain
privacy of its own efforts and investments contrasted with the need of
the public for valid data. That goes down the political rat hole of
collectivists wanting to take away the efforts of the productive people
in society. The patent system is designed as the primary compromise
between those two stances just as foundations, chairs and government are
designed as the primary compromise between privately owned science and
public science.

The patent system is too complex but the timing of its granted
monopolies are well thought out - And why I would rather have generics
when given the option. Right now it's very easy for me personallly to
be on the generic bandwagon as I'm only on one perscrption and it has
been available in generic form for decades. Had I an immediate need for
a patented medication my bias would reverse.

The problem of "bottom drawer" studies should be addressed
by ensuring that results of all studies are made public.

Right. The question becomes how and after how long in order for their
to be a profit incentive to continue development.

http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/20...itute-anecdote

"Anecdotes that provide definitive evidence"
"Epidemiology, in its present form, a poor substitute for anecdote."

"It is not to be wondered at that anecdotal evidence is the major
source of knowledge in this subject, practical epidemiology has failed
the patient completely, and confidence in the system has been badly
affected."

Epidemiology can never be a substitute for a random controlled study. Epidemiology
studies cannot control for confounding.

Confounding is what low carbers have faced for decades. Studies that
seem to confirm low fat confound the fact that such studies often ignore
carb intake.

Back in the 1970s Dr Atkins tried to publish his tabluar data. Because
it was not double blind it was declined for publication. From then on
he became a consumer of studies not a conductor of studies. But in the
end he was correct and the people participating in the "big fat lie"
were/are incorrect.

How do you propose to conduct a double blind study for diet? When the
people eating the foods are humans? Good luck with that.

And so there are studies but to acheive double blind status they have to
be extremely specific. Being extremely specific they are very subject
to confounding.

At this point there are very many studies on small details of metabolism
that address low carb issues. The science is there.