Opinion Polls: Delphi's Polling Place
Hosted by Showtalk
Opinion polls on all subjects. Opinions? Heck yes, we have opinions - but we're *always* nice about it, even when ours are diametrically opposed to yours. Register your vote today!
- 4706
MEMBERS - 107251
MESSAGES - 29
POSTS TODAY
Discussions
Less than 6% of “Approved” Medical Drugs The Healthy You: Health and Fitness Polls
Started Jul-7 by WALTER784; 84 views.
Staff
From: WALTER784
Jul-7
Bombshell Oxford Study: Less than 6% of “Approved” Medical Drugs Are Backed by “High-Quality Evidence” to Support Their Benefits – “Harms” are Significantly Underreported Across the Board
By Julian Conradson
Published June 20, 2022 at 9:50pm
According to a newly released study by the University of Oxford, a jaw-dropping 94% of recently approved medications are not supported by high-quality evidence that demonstrates their benefits. What’s more, just like with the experimental Covid-19 ‘vaccines,’ side effects and adverse reactions to these drugs are being severely underreported across the board.
When looking at medical drugs that have been approved since 2008 under the Cochrane reviews – a “leading” international journal and database that is endorsed by over 100 organizations worldwide, including the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) -researchers determined that just 87 of the 1,567 medications (6%) had clinical data that met the “high-quality” standard.
From the Oxford study:
“Of 1567 eligible interventions, 87 (5.6%) had high quality evidence on first-listed primary outcomes, positive, statistically significant results and were rated by review authors as beneficial.”
Unbelievably, the majority of these drugs could not even pass the ‘moderate-quality’ review, with over 50% failing to meet the reduced threshold. And yet, consumers have access to these drugs, which are causing unknown and underreported side effects – something that should amount to medical malpractice at the very least. That is – if we lived in a sane, well-functioning society.
One of the study’s authors, Dr. Jeremy Howick, certainly thinks so. Writing about the findings, Dr. Howick deemed the issue worrisome and stressed that, with this happening, ‘informed choice’ about medical treatments is essentially impossible.
From Dr. Howick, via The Epoch Times:
“It is particularly worrying that the harms of healthcare interventions are rarely quantified… For a doctor or patient to decide whether to use a treatment, they need to know whether the benefits outweigh the harms. If the harms are inadequately measured, an ‘informed choice’ is not possible…
…Potential harms should be measured with the same rigor as potential benefits. The evidence-based medicine community is correct to continue calling for higher-quality research, and also justified in their skepticism that high-quality evidence for medical treatments is common or even improving.”
It’s bad enough that these treatments were approved while lacking evidence showing they work, but these experimental drugs are also causing an untold amount of additional damage, with over 1/3 being linked to adverse reactions that are being underreported.
Nearly 10% of the approved medications were found to have “significant evidence of harm.”
“Harms were measured for 577 (36.8%) interventions, 127 of which (8.1%) had statistically significant evidence of harm.”
In the end, researchers simply concluded that “most healthcare interventions studied within recent Cochrane Reviews are not supported by high-quality evidence, and harms are under-reported.”
The Oxford study closely mirrors another recently published study out of the US that also found issues with medications being fast-tracked for public use without the proper supporting evidence. Published in JAMA, the US researchers found that the FDA had systematically relaxed its once-rigorous process to approve new drug treatments beginning in the 1980s – coincidentally right around the time Fauci entered the picture.
Between 1983 and 2018, as the number of new drug applications and approvals increased, the review period decreased. According to researchers, this happened because the FDA was, and still is, cutting corners on the clinical work to support these drugs’ safety and effectiveness. The study concluded that the agency “increasingly accepted less data and more surrogate measures” when approving new medications.
When you consider the fact that medication release prices are an astonishing 85x higher than they were in 2008 (thanks Obamacare) – let alone the absolute horrors of the experimental vaccine, which was just approved for babies and toddlers – this is beyond criminal. The last thing our so-called ‘public health experts’ are concerned about is saving lives.
...[Message truncated]
Host
From: Showtalk
Jul-9
I think it depends on the drug and what it’s intended to do. There are always side effects.
Staff
From: WALTER784
Jul-10
Yes, but I think the take away is:
>>>In the end, researchers simply concluded that “most healthcare interventions studied within recent Cochrane Reviews are not supported by high-quality evidence, and harms are under-reported.”<<<
We need good high quality tests performed if we're to rely on our FDA for guidance. Otherwise, what ever they approve will not meet the stringent guidelines and thus have a probability to cause more harm than good... should this be a risk we're willing to take?
I personally think not.
FWIW
TOP