Summary
I was somewhat surprised that a recent bit of investigative journalism in the New York Times did not generate more widespread attention and alarm. The article revealed that some 26 scientific papers lending support to the use of hormone replacement therapy for women at menopause, published between 1998 and 2005 in prominent medical journals, had been "ghost written." Writers were hired by the pharmaceutical industry, and in particular Wyeth pharmaceuticals, which of course had a vested interest in the promotion of their products. Wyeth at the time was marketing Prem/ Pro, the leading form of hormone replacement therapy. The official authors of these papers were experts who apparently just reviewed and blessed the papers after they were written, give or take a bit of editing, and lent their name. Since that time, more definitive studies have led us all to reach an entirely different conclusion about HRT for chronic disease prevention -- namely, that it is not routinely advisable.
The HRT story is itself complex and precautionary. The basis for thinking that HRT could meaningfully reduce risk of serious chronic diseases, including heart disease, was observational studies. In such studies, participants do what they want, and investigators simply note what happens to them. But if women using HRT have fewer heart attacks, it may be directly due to the HRT, or to something else about the women who decide to use it.See the full content of this document
Extract
There's Something Fishy Going On Here?
The latter proved to be the more likely explanation after randomized trials, and so science shifted its views in accord with the stronger research. HRT is no longer recommended for chronic disease prevention...
See the full content of this document
Sponsored links
