The BMJ wrote an article back in 2009, titled "We want raw data, now" and reported that an update in the Cochrane review had failed to verify claims based on an analysis of 10 drug company trials that said Tamiflu reduced the risk in healthy adults.
Over ten years ago the British Medical Journal reported that they were dominated by what they referred to as a "Cluster" of articles all with the same conclusion - the evidence that oseltamivir a treatment developed by a drug company, Hoffman-La Roche to prevent and treat "Flu", reduced complications in otherwise healthy people with pandemic influenza was uncertain and that they needed a radical change on the rules regarding access to trial data.
Incredibly, the listed "Principal authors" did not even have access to the raw data, and academics who requested access to the data for independent analysis were denied.
The 2009 editor of the BMJ and also the author of the article "We want raw data now", Fiona Godlee, acknowledged that there was a legitimate scientific concern that data used for health policy strategies are held only by a commercial organisation had not been subject to full external scrutiny and review.
Peter Doshi, admitted that "Progress was made, but clearly not enough"[] "Individual patient data from all trials of drugs should be readily available for scientific scrutiny".
AstraZeneca may be ready to entertain requests for data from several of its large phase III trials as of 31 December 2021 However, actually obtaining data could take time as its website explains, "Timelines vary per request and can take up to a year upon full submission of the request."
Pfizer who funded their own clinical trials which were also designed, run, and analysed by them, authored by their own employees, and held all the data from the trials are now reluctant to share this data for fear of revealing "Trade secrets".
https://dailyexpose.uk/2022/02/02/british-medical-journal-says-we-want-raw-data-now/
No comments:
Post a Comment