Home | About | Donate

Deep-Pocketed Industry Plays Outsized Role in Animal Drug Studies


Deep-Pocketed Industry Plays Outsized Role in Animal Drug Studies

Deirdre Fulton, staff writer

Corporate agribusinesses depend on favorable science—often in the form of published research in academic journals—to gain legitimacy, regulatory approval, and market acceptance of products such as new animal drugs.

But a new report from Food & Water Watch charges the industry with playing an enormous and hard-to-track role in the production of such studies.


We seem to be a people learning how to live a lie. We lie to get what we want. We accept the lies so that our lives are not disrupted in any way. Normal behavior for corporations; normal behavior for consumers.

"Corporate agribusinesses also author, fund and likely ghostwrite an enormous number of peer-reviewed studies, overwhelming the literature in some places with favorable research about their products and practices." - This, of course, is not simply the purview of corporate agribusinesses. It is a tactic in other areas as well - environment, human drug studies, etc., etc. We are inundated with dishonesty and, to our own detriment, we swallow it whole.

I don't know what the solution is. I do pay little attention to the more obvious attempts to manipulate us (ads, TV and otherwise). And I do understand it can be difficult to read the results of research if one is not knowledgeable in the subject. Perhaps taking a really close look at who would most benefit from the stated results, is a first step to figuring out just how truthful those results are.

When it comes to corporations and their profits, I have no trust whatsoever.


You're right, needlefoot. I have here some excellent quotes from the heads of all the major medical journals. Think long and hard before you buy the products of this medical system:

Marcia Angell, former editor of the NEJM:

"A review of seventy-four clinical trials of antidepressants, for
example, found that thirty-seven of thirty-eight positive studies
[that praised the drugs] were published. But of the thirty-six
negative studies, thirty-three were either not published or published
in a form that conveyed a positive outcome."

"It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical
research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted
physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in
this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two
decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine."

(Marcia Angell, MD, “Drug Companies and Doctors: A story of
Corruption.” NY Review of Books, Jan. 15, 2009.)

Richard Smith, the 25 year head of the BMJ:

"[I required] almost a quarter of a century editing ... to wake up to what was happening ... The companies seem to get the results they want not by fiddling the results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer review, but rather by asking the `right' questions -- and there are many ways to do this ... many ways to hugely increase the chance of producing favourable results, and there are many hired guns who will think up new ways and stay one jump ahead of peer reviewers."

Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of JAMA:

"This is all about bypassing science. Medicine is becoming a sort of Cloud Cuckoo Land, where doctors don't know what papers they can trust in the journals, and the public doesn't know what to believe."

(Quoted p.144 & 159 of "Doubt is their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" by David Michaels, Epidemiologist, past Assist Sec of Environment, Safety & Health at DOE, present Assist. Sec of Labor for OSHA.)