(Once again how does one "educate oneself" as to the science of disease and treatment when one cannot trust the information out there, even if one were able to understand all the science involved [and no one knows for certain what causes PD; all the areas involved--how and why; all the effects of drugs given; what are the adverse effects for an individual patient; how genomics and pharmacokinetics are involved in each individual's response to therapy, etc. etc. I fail to understand how anyone with or without PD, unless he/she is a movement disorder specialist, can know all this stuff. Perhaps my husband and I are both too old..though never thought early 60's was really old,having a mother who lived to 96 with all cognitive abilities, completing crosswords puzzles and sudoku up to time of her death. and husband and i both have strong science backgrounds/foregrounds. We do the best we can, interpreting the studies and info available, and trust husband's movements specialist for the rest. And we don't blame ourselves if we all get something wrong thru lack of knowledge/misinterpretation. There is just too much stuff out there.]
The article referenced below features quotes for 4 of my favorite scientists/physicians: Dr. Curt Furburg, Dr. John Ioannidis, Dr, Beatrice Golomb, and Dr. Jerome Hoffman, showing my bias...)

Jeanne Lenzer has penned a great article published in Discover Magazine titled "Wonder Drugs That Can Kill
Modern- pharmaceutical "breakthroughs" sometimes do more harm than good. "

From the July 2008 issue, published online June 20, 2008


http://discovermagazine.com/2008/jul...-that-can-kill
(Excerpt
"How often do today’s medical 'breakthroughs'
become tomorrow’s discredited
science? John P. A. Ioannidis, an epidemiologist
at Tufts University School of Medicine ...examined the most-cited clinical studies
published in the top three medical journals
between 1990 and 2000 to see how well
researchers’ initial claims held up against
subsequent research. His findings, published
in JAMA, show that the key claims of nearly
one-third (14 out of 49) of the original research
studies he examined were either false or exaggerated.
Small study size, design flaws, publication
bias (failure to publish negative results
or duplication of positive results), drug-industry
influence, and the play of chance were among
the problems Ioannidis found that caused false
or exaggerated claims...
Studies can be designed and interpreted
in ways that make even ineffective drugs
seem like lifesavers, says Curt Furberg,...cardiovascular epidemiologist
and former chief of the clinical trials branch
at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.
... Furberg...
wants more objectivity in medical research.
'We need more publicly funded studies,' he
says, adding that manufacturer-sponsored

research tends to minimize risks and exaggerate benefits.
A score of studies support his opinion. .. 2003 analysis by Cary P. Gross, an associate professor of medicine at Yale
...published in JAMA. ...found that industry-sponsored research was positive 87 percent
of the time compared with 65 percent positive for research that
was not industry sponsored. According to Gross, the evidence was
overwhelming that “industry sponsorship was likely to yield proindustry
results.” A 2006 analysis published in the American Journal
of Psychiatry found that 90 percent of manufacturer-sponsored
studies of antipsychotic drugs led to claims that the study drug was
as good as, or superior to, every other drug in its class. Shannon
Brownlee, an award-winning medical writer based in Washington,
D.C., ascribed this to the 'Lake Wobegon effect,' which renders
every drug “above average.”

(Dr. Furburg was removed from the Drug Safety committee reviewing info on COX-2 inhibitors, specifically Vioxx. He gave his opinion to the NYT that he thought Bextra use was also associated with heart attacks. He was removed from the committee because of 'bias'. )
... Furberg now asks, 'If
bias was a concern, why did they allow 10 advisory members with ties
to the manufacturers to be seated?' He was reinstated to the panel
two days later and vindicated when the FDA announced that it had
asked Pfizer to voluntarily withdraw Bextra from the market..."