"The Importance of Open Access: An Interview with Patient Advocate Graham Steel"
http://blog.patientslikeme.com/2012/07/09/the-importance-of-open-access-an-interview-with-patient-advocate-graham-steel/?utm_content=buffer25cae&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer“In the past six years, we’ve found that more and more patients are trying to access research studies written about them, including studies where they were participants. In addition, they are increasingly capable of understanding them. Yet closed access is locking them out of better understanding their conditions and their choices.”
-----------------------------------
Tweeted by @ESchattner
"A New Way to Think About Conflicts of Interest in Medicine"
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/01/upshot/a-new-way-to-think-about-conflicts-of-interest-in-medicine.html?smid=tw-shareGood science is how we avoid fooling ourselves, even when we have incentive to do so, financial and otherwise. The true merits of a study stem from its design and methods, so long as they are fully and transparently reported — and there are many ways we could do a better job of that.
-----------------------------------
Tweeted by @subatomicdoc
"A Rough Guide to Types of Scientific Evidence"
http://www.compoundchem.com/2015/04/09/scientific-evidence/?utm_content=buffer1781b&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=bufferYou might think science is science, but some evidence is ranked higher in the scientific community than others, and having an awareness of this can help you sort the science from the pseudoscience when it comes to various internet claims.
-----------------------------------
Tweeted by @tessajlrichards
"Justifying conflicts of interest in medical journals: a very bad idea"
http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2942A series of articles in the New England Journal of Medicine has questioned whether the conflict of interest movement has gone too far in its campaign to stop the drug industry influencing the medical profession. Here, three former senior NEJM editors respond with dismay
-----------------------------------
Tweeted by @afrakt
"Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals"
http://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h2957?etoc=we should encourage all medical journals to separate the functions of evidence generation from those of appraisal
&
"Clinical trial data for all drugs in current use"
http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e7304As Ben Goldacre says in the introduction to his new book Bad Pharma, “Drug companies around the world have produced some of the most amazing innovations of the past fifty years, saving lives on an epic scale. But that does not allow them to hide data, mislead doctors, and harm patients.”
-----------------------------------
Might be a good place for this link ...
Re: FDA-----------------------------------
Re: Desensitization Programs in the US -- OIT SLIT SCIT-----------------------------------
You know, a while back I saw an allergist on twitter say something (seemed to me to be a bit sarcastic) about how they all must be "bought". I couldn't help but wonder if he had recently been reading some of our FAS threads ... but, of course, I did not engage ... but I will say it here, in case it's not clear ... I do think that patients have every right to think about and ? bias & potential conflicts of interest. These seem to be issues that require humbleness, not defensiveness or mockery.
-----------------------------------
I thought you guys were starting to get bored with this thread
... and being that I'm not
really a researcher, I figured it was time to stop ....
but we can keep it going if you want.