BMJ article on malpractice, Pfizer trials

  • Thread starter pinball1970
  • Start date
  • Tags
    article
In summary, concerns were raised about the integrity of the trial by the study's author. There are no indications of fraud or tampering with data and results, but the shadow cast by these concerns may impact the public's view of the accuracy and reliability of scientific research.
  • #1
pinball1970
Gold Member
2,636
3,724
TL;DR Summary
https://www.bmj.com/content/375/bmj.n2635

In her 25 September email to the FDA Jackson wrote that Ventavia had enrolled more than 1000 participants at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44 000 participants across 153 sites that included numerous commercial companies and academic centres. Many concerns raised.
Not what we want want to be reading in the BMJ at this time regarding trial integrity.
The Vaccine works, the data is overwhelming but this casts a shadow on the integrity of the trials and the Science community as a whole (especially seen from the tax payer/layman perspective)

Concerns raised​

In her 25 September email to the FDA Jackson wrote that Ventavia had enrolled more than 1000 participants at three sites. The full trial (registered under NCT04368728) enrolled around 44 000 participants across 153 sites that included numerous commercial companies and academic centres. She then listed a dozen concerns she had witnessed, including:
  • Participants placed in a hallway after injection and not being monitored by clinical staff
  • Lack of timely follow-up of patients who experienced adverse events
  • Protocol deviations not being reported
  • Vaccines not being stored at proper temperatures
  • Mislabelled laboratory specimens, and
  • Targeting of Ventavia staff for reporting these types of problems.
There is also a mention of patients being unblinded.

Science guys seen this? Thoughts? Or is the human factor that is part and parcel of the process?
Thanks in advance.
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
pinball1970 said:
Science guys seen this? Thoughts? Or is the human factor that is part and parcel of the process?
Can't spell 'science' without 'humans'. Else who would spell it?
 
  • Like
Likes jim mcnamara, atyy and BillTre
  • #3
To elaborate on my previous post, this isn't unexpected. Frankly I'd be amazed if no sites anywhere reported any of the problems listed above. People are flawed, fallible, and lazy. That's why the processes that inspect and report on said problems exist in the first place.
pinball1970 said:
The Vaccine works, the data is overwhelming but this casts a shadow on the integrity of the trials and the Science community as a whole (especially seen from the tax payer/layman perspective)
If its a shadow, it's a small one. There doesn't appear to be any fraud or tampering with data and results. Most of the issues listed have to do with people not doing all the little nitty gritty things that they're supposed to be doing. You don't want to know all the little things that I've seen get skipped, missed, and overlooked in my career in the Air Force.

Still, little things lead to big problems, so these obviously need to be addressed.
 
  • Like
Likes atyy and pinball1970
  • #4
The major trial results were quantitatively corroborated by real world data from Israel.
It's unclear how most of the issues would have affected the trial results. One of the issues - the non-testing of symptomatic participants - that could have affected the trial results, was analyzed by Pfizer and the FDA and found not to affect results.
Another point of view: https://respectfulinsolence.com/2021/11/15/wtf-happened-to-the-bmj/
What @thackerpd didn't mention: The share of non-tested trial participants was very similar in the treatment and the placebo groups (9.2% vs 10.1%), and a sensitivity check was done on this issue. https://t.co/7g4B3AUqyG pic.twitter.com/q3DDySb2KG
— Andreas Backhaus (@AndreasShrugged) November 3, 2021
 
  • Informative
Likes pinball1970

1. What is the BMJ article about?

The BMJ article discusses malpractice and misconduct in Pfizer's clinical trials, specifically focusing on the drug gabapentin.

2. What are the main findings of the article?

The article highlights several instances of misconduct in Pfizer's trials, including the manipulation of data and failure to report adverse effects of gabapentin. It also discusses the lack of oversight and accountability in the pharmaceutical industry.

3. How does this article impact the public and healthcare professionals?

This article sheds light on the unethical practices of a major pharmaceutical company, which can erode trust in the industry and raise concerns about the safety and effectiveness of drugs. It also highlights the importance of transparency and accountability in clinical trials for the benefit of patients and healthcare professionals.

4. What steps can be taken to prevent malpractice and misconduct in clinical trials?

The article suggests stricter regulations and oversight of clinical trials, as well as increased transparency and accountability from pharmaceutical companies. It also emphasizes the importance of independent monitoring and reporting of trial data.

5. What are the implications of this article for future research and drug development?

This article serves as a cautionary tale for the pharmaceutical industry and highlights the need for ethical practices in clinical trials. It also emphasizes the importance of thorough and unbiased reporting of trial data to ensure the safety and effectiveness of new drugs for the public.

Back
Top