http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/23/why-almost-everything-you-hear-about-medicine-is-wrong.html
Somewhat sensationalist headline, not mine, obviously. Interesting. Negative studies tend to be published several years later than positive ones, as the research is usually funded by drug companies. 'As a result of the lag in publishing negative studies, patients receive a treatment that is actually ineffective'.
If for no other reason (of which there are a multitude) this is a strong argument for having as great a diversity of treatments and therapies as possible. If orthodoxy cannot be held ot its own standard of proof in the real world, then it should have no say on the legislation of alternatives, which it demands to judge by the same standards.
"Numerous studies concluding that popular antidepressants work by
altering brain chemistry have now been contradicted (the drugs help with
mild and moderate depression, when they work at all, through a placebo
effect), as has research claiming that early cancer detection (through,
say, PSA tests) invariably saves lives."
Here's one for the sceptics: if we now know that popular antidepressants for mild/moderate depression work only through a placebo effect, why do they have any greater right to be prescribed on the NHS than homeopathy, for example? Because they are produced and marketed by large and powerful companies?
“When you do thousands of tests, statistics says you’ll have some false
winners,” says Ioannidis. Drug companies make a mint on such dicey
statistics. By testing an approved drug for other uses, they get hits by
chance, “and doctors use that as the basis to prescribe the drug for
this new use. I think that’s wrong.”
You can't blame drug companies for playing with statistics, as they are trying to recoup their massive investments and maximise their profits. However, the system is set up to funnel their efforts straight into primary health care, which leads to ghastly mistakes.