Cigarette Company Funded Lung Cancer Study

Should the FDA rule relaxation not materialize, The Carlyle Group could still make a killing off Reed Elsevier. The company runs weapons fairs, much to the chagrin of physicians with "The Lancet".

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2007-03-28-1667352557_x.htm

If the FDA reg passes, Carlyle could get a firm with rapidly improving conditions in two markets, publishing drug studies and selling weapons in our ever dangerous world. If the past is any indicator, The Carlyle Group will make a killing.

As I understand it, the biggest problem with lung cancer is that it usually isn't detected until its too late. If a Spiral CT scan can find a tumor earlier, isn't that a good thing? False positives leading to unnecessary surgeries aside, I would rather find that tumor at an early stage and have a chance to get rid of it. Think of Peter Jennings and countless others who quit smoking years earlier. They get a cough that won't go away, then finally get a terrible diagnosis and are dead within months.

Granted, I haven't read all the details that have just been released about the controversy (Liggett funding the research), so I may be missing vital information that could give me the definitive answer to my questions. However, I don't think the implication is that Liggett is encouraging people to continue smoking because they've found a magic bullet against a miserable death.

Maybe someone will set me straight.

So, a researcher gets money from an organization and the theory is that their results may be skewed by a perceived desire for a certain outcome -- that's the theory, right? Sooo, tell me now. MIght there also be scientists who perceive that a government or research organization is also looking for a specific outcome? If, for example, a scientist conducted a study that undermined global warming, might you think that his/her opportunities for additional funding could possibly be in jeopardy? This cuts both ways. How about we just look at the science and debate instead of attempting to besmirch. Get real.

Kind of like "Man Made Global Warming" being funded by Chicago Climate Exchange?

Wikipedia-described as "the world's first and North America's only legally binding greenhouse gas emission registry reduction system for emission sources and offset projects in North America and Brazil."

Don't you remember the study on medical studies that concluded something like 50% of published peer review medical studies are corrupt.

Sheesh, take a look around at the body count...and no, your Mother did NOT have to die that way.

"It's time to bring this dark chapter in mans history to an end."

Run From The Cure The Rick Simpson Story
http://www.youtube.com/chrychek

Why do you even need your doctor to tell you to quit smoking? We don't even need studies on this subject anymore. We all know that smoking is not good for you.
More insidious to me, are things like Brazillian Hair Straightening. It's a product that straightens your hair and advertises that it's a protein (keratin) and it's safe for the hair and doesn't cause damage like chemical straighteners. But most people don't know that it is laced with formaldehyde which DOES cause cancer.
Doesn't this concern you? I mean we KNOW cigarettes are dangerous...but there are hair dressers who are applying this shit on client's hair on a daily basis and exposing themselves to dangerous levels of FORMALDEHYDE. How can this even be legal?
It's not even the keratin that straightens the hair...it's the frikkin formaldehyde.
IMHO, this is just as evil as the cigarette companies were back in the 40's and 50's.
What else is out there that is dangerous and we don't know about? It's time to forget about the cigarettes which we all know are bad...let's turn our attentioin to other dangers that are being kept from us...anti-depressants would be a good place to start too.

The Foundation FOR Lung Cancer.
That says it all!

So let me get this straight, if a charitable arm of a corporation with financial interests funds a study, thane it has to be discredited?

Then we should toss out all the studies on Second Hand Smoke funded by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, since RWJ is connected to Johnson and Johnson, manufacturers of Nicoderm® paatches and Nicorette® gum.

Funny someone should mention a drug company. Bush's FDA proposed a rule relaxation. It will allow drug companies to market their drugs for non-FDA approved indications as long as the use has been published in a medical journal. Drug companies don't even have to do studies proving the drug has a clinical impact. But doctors will want to see some data. That means slanted studies with quick data turn around, like the tobacco company cigarette study.

Here's the amazing link. The Carlyle Group is looking to buy Reed Elvesier, a large publisher of trade magazines, with over 800 medical journals/yearbooks. Drug companies will pay big bucks to get articles published expanding off label uses of their products. The government industrial monstrosity keeps on ticking and the consumer keeps taking a licking. Welcome to Bush World:

http://peureport.blogspot.com/2008/03/carlyle-reads-signs.html

The study is being used to shift liability from the tobacco companies to physicians and patients who could have gotten earlier diagnosis, and hence, better outcomes. The revelation about the charitable front company being used as a covert funder has already changed the value of pending claims. The earlier diagnosis by spiral CT yielding better results is now suspect. So is the legislation funding the spiral CT's. A further question is raised about exposing patients to the massive radiation involved in the spiral CT technology.

We have here yet another piece of evidence that greed overcomes scientific evidence and influences our legislation and tort litigation. The NYT is to be congratulated on following the money through tax documents to reveal the true source of the funding for this researcher. Her "work" goes back many years and, if the efficacy of early diagnosis by spiral CT technology is not established or is refuted because early treatment odes not really change the outcome, one wonders how many additional cases of unnecessary radiation exposure and resulting cancers could have been avoided, not to mention the $1,750 a pop wasted.

Medicine is nothing other than a big business. Tobacco is a rip off. Time to make examples out of people who conspire to do these things. This is not a victimless crime. Only time will tell, no thanks to the "good doctor," and her failure to disclose her true benefactor, the tobacco and makers of the the spiral CT machines.

Umm, excuse me, but I would give a hell of a lot more credence to the cigarette company funding my medical program than one of our "Godly" drug companies, thank you.

IF YOU SMOKE YOUR LUNGS GET DAMAGED !!!!!!!!

IF SMOKE AFTER YOUR DOCTOR TELL YOU TO QUIT -- PAY YOUR OWN MEDICAL BILLS.

OUTLAW TOBACCO PRODUCTS.

The best science and its resultant public policy that corporate money can buy.

No surprise here. If, for example, you read Delfino and Day's book, Cancer: we live and die by radiation, you'll understand just how well entrenched the tobacco industry is in the cancer therapy business.

I'm not saying that cigarette companies have ever been up to any good; however is the aim of this to invalidate the conclusions of the research? I think the conclusion of the study, and ostensibly the aim of the study is a net positive. Are we going to stand back from this study and say 'no to ct's' just because the study was funded by cig companies? Equivalently, are we going to reject the findings if an oil company funds a study stating another way of which we can fight against global warming. This is like saying we shouldn't ride buses because buses help the oil companies by using gas.

You have got to give me a break. The medical field is all up in arms about a tobacco company putting money into research? The industry is involved in selling products that are said to be injurious to the health. If a researcher allows themselves to bias their studies based on the funding, we have a really big problem. Who is the bad guy--the ones putting up the cash, or the ones who under the guise of a professional title, make their studies fit the desired result? It is more scary to me to hear that medical science can be bought--why is there no recourse against these people who release bought information?

We don't want tobacco funded medical studies...but studies funded by pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment technology equipment manufactures are okay? I think we'd better stand back a little bit and find out what exactly these big companies are buying with their research dollars. Does anyone really think that drug companies are not in cahoots with their researchers? Medical studies are extremely subjective, and can be creatively designed.

Not too many things more disgusting than this. Dr. Claudia Henschke is your classic collaborator, in bed
with the enemy. How does she sleep at night?

Let me guess - they found there is absolutely no connection between lung cancer and smoking, as a matter of fact they found out that smoking is good for you, that the 174 chemicals put into cigarettes actually clear your lungs and it's natural to fill your lungs with carcinogens, it promotes good breath and makes your teeth whiter ... gee, who knew?

Camel anyone?

Tobacco companies trying to fool the public? Nah, coudn't happen.