I agree with MsL, there are big problems ahead. First, let me repeat something from one of the Anesthesia News stories that was posted yesterday:

Because of the layered nature of scientific research and publishing, the scandal “compromises every meta-analysis, editorial, systematic review of analgesic trials”—as well as every lecture and continuing education course—that cited the fraudulent findings, added Dr. White, a member of the editorial board of Anesthesiology News. “Clearly, it’s time get back to the hard work of conducting clinical analgesic studies to address important issues in perioperative pain management and patient outcomes.”

Sort of reminds you of credit default swaps, doesn't it? http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/ref...aps/index.html

Everything all ties together like that. Now, just like the ask about how many more Madoffs there are out there, we wonder how many more Reubans Big Pharma has bequeathed unto us.

So Dubious, you still in favor of "meta-analysis."

And just why the FDA hasn't at any time in the last 50 years attempted to regulate the financial and disclosure issues surrounding the pharmaceutical/researcher relationship - beyond the relatively recent requirement that was imposed not by the FDA, but by the medical journals (NEJM I believe forced the hand of everyone else) to voluntarily state whether the author has any "conflicting interests" in the study - is beyond me.

Mike