There is a difference. Just because a kid steals candy from a candystore, does that guarantee that he or she will commit murder? You cannot assume that because a corporation finaggles their taxes or cuts corners that they will also lie on the studies used for fda approval. Now some have in fact in the past and it was publicized and in the news and they paid huge penalties (not enough in my opinion). As a general rule though, there is too much oversight during the course of the study for that to happen. It is also the normal way studies are conducted, so if you want that to change, then get involved and chang the law. Otherwise, there is really no medicine you can take which has not gone through the same approval process and received funding in that process by the manufacturer. Afterall, they are the ones who will benefit so it is in their interest to fund the study. There are many times studies are stopped prematurely because of negative results and times when the results don't work out in the best interests of the manufacturer as well. Those times they lose all that money they invested in R&D.


>In theory.
>
>I'm not saying rule them out, just that they leave me skeptical. Corporations would never be underhanded and skirt rules in order to be more profitable, would they? ;-)
>
>
>>You cannot rule out studies financed by the manufacturer of drugs. If you did, you would not take anything, prescription or over the counter here in the U.S. Studies much follow strict guidelines and controls and if not, then the study is professionally discarded. Those studies are the only way manufacturers get FDA approval.
>>
>>
>>
>>>That's fairly preliminary research of a few hundred heavy drinkers who suffer from migraines and epileptic seizures. And note that the study was sponsored by the manufacturer of the drug.
>>>
>>>
>>>>http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn12762