http://www.badscience.net/category/big-pharma/ http://www.amazon.co.uk/Bad-Pharma-companies-mislead-patient...
There are serious issues with the current models used by Corporations <> Science, and I'd expected HN to be a little more rational.
Bottom line: if $ is at stake, of course "rational actors" will fudge their lines to prevent losses. It's not rocket science.
Now - I've included a couple of decent links, to extremely well researched and honest analysis. If I get down-voted, I feel that HN has lost the spirit that drove most early coders.
A =! A is not an objectivist philosophy, it's Logic, and what code is based upon. Ideology can go take a flying leap, this is Science.
He's a physician who writes mostly about bad science reporting, pseudo-science and quackery and Bad Pharma is all about the tricks that pharmaceutical companies get up to to ensure that trials with negative outcomes never see the light of day and to try and spin their products in the best posible light - like telling doctors that drug X is more effective than a placebo, but failing to mention that it's no more effective than existing drugs on the market. Ultimately, if the doctors who are prescribing the drug don't have the complete picture, how are they supposed to make an informed choice about what to give you?
I heard him talk a few weeks ago and while I might not call him 100% unbiased (I think that some of his allegations are a touch exaggerated in terms of their potential harm) he's definitely very interesting and eye-opening.
