Drug research has not significantly advanced in the past half-century, with most new drugs being variations of existing ones.

The Expose News - com

<p>The claim that drug research has not significantly advanced in the past half-century, with most new drugs being variations of existing ones, was made in an article published on The Expose on August 28, 2024. This claim is based on an essay by Dr. Vernon Coleman, originally written 50 years ago and republished in 1975.</p>
<p>To evaluate this claim, it is essential to consider the context and advancements in pharmaceutical research over the past five decades.</p>
<h2>Historical Context</h2>
<p>Dr. Coleman's essay, written in the 1970s, highlighted the trend of diminishing originality in drug development. He noted that research efforts were concentrated on cancer, cardiovascular disorders, viral diseases, and psychological disorders. However, progress was hindered by the complex nature of these conditions and a lack of comprehensive understanding of biochemistry.</p>
<h2>Advancements in Drug Research</h2>
<p>While it is true that many new drugs are variations of existing ones, significant advancements have been made in pharmaceutical research. For instance, the development of targeted therapies for cancer, such as monoclonal antibodies and kinase inhibitors, has revolutionized cancer treatment. These therapies are designed to specifically target cancer cells, reducing side effects and improving patient outcomes. A study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4776980/">Journal of Clinical Oncology</a> highlights the impact of targeted therapies on cancer treatment.</p>
<p>In the field of cardiovascular disorders, the introduction of statins in the late 1980s has significantly reduced the risk of heart disease. Statins work by lowering cholesterol levels, which is a major risk factor for cardiovascular diseases. A review published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967093/">Journal of the American College of Cardiology</a> discusses the efficacy and safety of statins.</p>
<p>For viral diseases, the development of antiviral drugs has been crucial. For example, the introduction of antiretroviral therapy (ART) for HIV has transformed the disease from a fatal condition to a manageable chronic illness. A study published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4843618/">Lancet</a> discusses the impact of ART on HIV treatment.</p>
<p>In the field of psychological disorders, the development of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has been a significant advancement. SSRIs are a class of antidepressants that work by increasing the levels of serotonin in the brain. A review published in the <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4172306/">Journal of Clinical Psychiatry</a> discusses the efficacy and safety of SSRIs.</p>
<h2>Challenges in Drug Research</h2>
<p>Despite these advancements, drug research faces significant challenges. The complexity of diseases, the need for a comprehensive understanding of biochemistry, and the ethical considerations in drug development are ongoing issues. Additionally, the high cost of drug development and the need for extensive clinical trials can hinder progress.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The claim that drug research has not significantly advanced in the past half-century is partially true but oversimplifies the complexities and advancements in pharmaceutical research. While many new drugs are variations of existing ones, significant advancements have been made in targeted therapies for cancer, statins for cardiovascular disorders, antiviral drugs for viral diseases, and SSRIs for psychological disorders. However, drug research continues to face significant challenges, and ongoing efforts are needed to address these issues.</p>

Claim Review: Drug Research Stagnation Over the Past Half-Century

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>Remdesivir, an antiviral drug, has been widely promoted as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. However, the effectiveness and safety of this drug have been subjects of debate. This article aims to review the claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients and to provide a thorough analysis based on scientific evidence.</p>
<h2>What is Remdesivir?</h2>
<p>Remdesivir is a broad-spectrum antiviral drug that inhibits RNA polymerase, disrupting the production of vital RNA. It was initially developed to treat Ebola but has been repurposed for COVID-19 treatment.</p>
<h2>Claim Analysis</h2>
<p>The claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients is based on its approval by regulatory bodies such as the FDA, EU, and UK's drug regulator. However, several studies have cast doubt on its efficacy and safety.</p>
<h2>Scientific Evidence</h2>
<p>The World Health Organization's Solidarity Trial found that Remdesivir does not reduce mortality or the time COVID-19 patients take to recover. A study published in <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext">The Lancet</a> also found no statistically significant benefit from the treatment.</p>
<p>Furthermore, a review of Remdesivir on <a href="https://www.drugs.com/comments/remdesivir/">drugs.com</a> showed that 47% of reviewers had a negative experience with the drug, compared to 19.38% who had a positive experience.</p>
<h2>Side Effects and Safety Concerns</h2>
<p>Remdesivir has been associated with several side effects, including fast, pounding heartbeats, trouble breathing, wheezing, shivering, itching, sweating, facial swelling, severe headache, and a feeling of being about to pass out. Subsequent side effects may include nausea and abnormal liver function tests.</p>
<p>The UK's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) reports that Remdesivir interacts with twelve other drugs, including chloroquine, hydroxychloroquine, and phenytoin. Doctors prescribing Remdesivir should be aware of these interactions to avoid potential harm to patients.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Based on the available scientific evidence, the claim that Remdesivir is an effective treatment for COVID-19 patients is not supported. The drug has shown minimal efficacy in clinical trials and is associated with significant side effects. It is crucial for healthcare providers to consider the risks and benefits carefully before prescribing Remdesivir to COVID-19 patients.</p>

Claim Review: Remdesivir as an Effective Treatment for COVID-19

<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>A recent article claims that Japanese scientists have discovered abortion drugs in COVID-19 vaccines, potentially leading to charges against Bill Gates for crimes against humanity. This claim has sparked significant concern and controversy. This article aims to review the claim and provide a thorough analysis based on available scientific evidence.</p>
<h2>The Claim</h2>
<p>The article alleges that Japanese scientists have found abortion drugs in the Pfizer and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines. It further suggests that these vaccines cause pregnant women to have unwanted abortions and that Bill Gates and Anthony Fauci may face legal consequences for their involvement in the distribution of these vaccines.</p>
<h2>Analysis of the Claim</h2>
<p>To evaluate the claim, it is essential to examine the scientific evidence and the credibility of the sources cited in the article.</p>
<h3>Scientific Evidence</h3>
<p>The article does not provide any specific scientific studies or peer-reviewed research to support the claim that abortion drugs have been found in COVID-19 vaccines. Instead, it relies on unnamed 'Japanese scientists' and references to Dr. Robert Malone, who is known for his controversial views on mRNA vaccines.</p>
<p>A thorough search of reputable scientific databases, such as PubMed and Google Scholar, did not yield any peer-reviewed studies supporting the claim that abortion drugs are present in COVID-19 vaccines. The lack of scientific evidence casts significant doubt on the validity of the claim.</p>
<h3>Credibility of Sources</h3>
<p>The article cites sources such as Pandemic.news and NaturalNews.com, which are known for spreading misinformation and conspiracy theories. These sources often lack credibility and are not considered reliable by the scientific community.</p>
<p>In contrast, reputable sources such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the World Health Organization (WHO) have consistently affirmed the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. These organizations have not reported any findings of abortion drugs in the vaccines.</p>
<h3>Expert Opinions</h3>
<p>Dr. Robert Malone, mentioned in the article, has been a vocal critic of mRNA vaccines. However, his views are not widely accepted by the scientific community. Many experts have refuted his claims and emphasized the safety of mRNA vaccines.</p>
<p>For example, a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found no evidence of adverse effects on pregnancy outcomes in women who received mRNA vaccines (<a href='https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2104983'>NEJM</a>).</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>Based on the lack of scientific evidence and the unreliability of the sources cited in the article, the claim that Japanese scientists found abortion drugs in COVID-19 vaccines is unfounded. The claim is rated as false.</p>
<p>It is crucial to rely on credible scientific sources and peer-reviewed research when evaluating claims related to public health. Misinformation can have serious consequences, including undermining public trust in vaccines and other medical interventions.</p>

Claim Review: Japanese Scientists Find Abortion Drugs in COVID-19 Vaccines

<p>In the 1960s, the sugar industry funded research that downplayed the risks of sugar and highlighted the hazards of fat, according to a newly published article in <a href='https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2548255'>JAMA Internal Medicine</a>. The article draws on internal documents to show that an industry group called the Sugar Research Foundation (SRF) wanted to refute concerns about sugar's possible role in heart disease. The SRF then sponsored research by Harvard scientists that did just that. The result was published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1967, with no disclosure of the sugar industry funding.</p>            <p>The sugar-funded project in question was a literature review, examining a variety of studies and experiments. It suggested there were major problems with all the studies that implicated sugar, and concluded that cutting fat out of American diets was the best way to address coronary heart disease. The authors of the new article say that for the past five decades, the sugar industry has been attempting to influence the scientific debate over the relative risks of sugar and fat.</p>            <p>The researchers note that they worked under some limitations — 'We could not interview key actors involved in this historical episode because they have died,' they write. Other organizations were also advocating concerns about fat, they note. There's no evidence that the SRF directly edited the manuscript published by the Harvard scientists in 1967, but there is circumstantial evidence that the interests of the sugar lobby shaped the conclusions of the review, the researchers say.</p>            <p>For one thing, there's motivation and intent. In 1954, the researchers note, the president of the SRF gave a speech describing a great business opportunity. If Americans could be persuaded to eat a lower-fat diet — for the sake of their health — they would need to replace that fat with something else. America's per capita sugar consumption could go up by a third.</p>            <p>But in the '60s, the SRF became aware of flowing reports that sugar is a less desirable dietary source of calories than other carbohydrates, as John Hickson, SRF vice president and director of research, put it in one document. He recommended that the industry fund its own studies — 'Then we can publish the data and refute our detractors.' The next year, after several scientific articles were published suggesting a link between sucrose and coronary heart disease, the SRF approved the literature-review project. It wound up paying approximately $50,000 in today's dollars for the research.</p>            <p>One of the researchers was the chairman of Harvard's Public Health Nutrition Department — and an ad hoc member of SRF's board. A different standard for different studies Glantz, Kearns and Schmidt say many of the articles examined in the review were hand-selected by SRF, and it was implied that the sugar industry would expect them to be critiqued.</p>            <p>In a letter, SRF's Hickson said that the organization's particular interest was in evaluating studies focused on carbohydrates in the form of sucrose. 'We are well aware,' one of the scientists replied, 'and will cover this as well as we can.' The project wound up taking longer than expected, because more and more studies were being released that suggested sugar might be linked to coronary heart disease. But it was finally published in 1967. Hickson was certainly happy with the result: 'Let me assure you this is quite what we had in mind and we look forward to its appearance in print,' he told one of the scientists.</p>            <p>The review minimized the significance of research that suggested sugar could play a role in coronary heart disease. In some cases the scientists alleged investigator incompetence or flawed methodology. It is always appropriate to question the validity of individual studies, Kearns told Bloomberg via email. But, she says, the authors applied a different standard to different studies — looking very critically at research that implicated sugar, and ignoring problems with studies that found dangers in fat.</p>            <p>Epidemiological studies of sugar consumption — which look at patterns of health and disease in the real world — were dismissed for having too many possible factors getting in the way. Experimental studies were dismissed for being too dissimilar to real life. One study that found a health benefit when people ate less sugar and more vegetables was dismissed because that dietary change was not feasible. Another study, in which rats were given a diet low in fat and high in sugar, was rejected because such diets are rarely consumed by man.</p>            <p>The Harvard researchers then turned to studies that examined risks of fat — which included the same kind of epidemiological studies they had dismissed when it came to sugar. Citing few study characteristics and no quantitative results, as Kearns, Glantz and Schmidt put it, they concluded that cutting out fat was no doubt the best dietary intervention to prevent coronary heart disease.</p>            <p>In a statement, the Sugar Association — which evolved out of the SRF — said it is challenging to comment on events from so long ago. 'We acknowledge that the Sugar Research Foundation should have exercised greater transparency in all of its research activities, however, when the studies in question were published funding disclosures and transparency standards were not the norm they are today,' the association said. Generally speaking, it is not only unfortunate but a disservice that industry-funded research is branded as tainted, the statement continues. What is often missing from the dialogue is that industry-funded research has been informative in addressing key issues.</p>            <p>The documents in question are five decades old, but the larger issue is of the moment, as Marion Nestle notes in a commentary in the same issue of JAMA Internal Medicine: 'Is it really true that food companies deliberately set out to manipulate research in their favor? Yes, it is, and the practice continues.' In 2015, the New York Times obtained emails revealing Coca-Cola's cozy relationships with sponsored researchers who were conducting studies aimed at minimizing the effects of sugary drinks on obesity. Even more recently, the Associated Press obtained emails showing how a candy trade association funded and influenced studies to show that children who eat sweets have healthier body weights than those who do not.</p>            <p>As for the article authors who dug into the documents around this funding, they offer two suggestions for the future. Policymaking committees should consider giving less weight to food industry-funded studies, they write. They also call for new research into any ties between added sugars and coronary heart disease.</p>

Claim Review: Sugar Industry Funded Research to Shift Blame to Fat

If you want to replace an existing title on a portal and you want the replaced title to be visible to you and your followers.

Move the mouse over the title and make a right click.

Select Remedia -> Alternate Title from the menu

In the pop-up window, enter a new title that you like.

The blue icon copies the existing title into the input field, so you don't have to type everything...

By pressing Submit, the title will be replaced, which will be visible to you and others who visit the pages.

(There is a possibility that you will have to reload the page for the changes to be visible)

You can contact one of the fact-checking organizations.

Claim rated as -> Choose from false to true

Add claimer -> Opens a pop-up window that allows you to search for existing people already registered in the system or to create a new profile of that person.

Claimed At -> Enter the link to the page where the claim was found. You can add more places and link more claim authors

Short description -> short content that is seen when sharing articles on social networks

Field for entering the content of the article.

After the article is published, it will be visible on the Remedia social network and to everyone who has the Remedia Chrome extension installed

And you can engage in debunking yourself.

CAUTION! Abusing the platform is not allowed, entering unverified, misleading or untrue content will result in the deletion of the entire account with all content

Canonical -> If you enter content that already exists somewhere (your property), you can enter a link and Remedia will try to enter the content in the provided fields.

Featured image -> Image that is displayed when you share an article on other social networks.

Write your title -> Enter the title of the article

The claim being reviewed -> Enter the claim here, but BEWARE! An assertion is not the entire statement someone has made, but something concise and unambiguous. Check the claim entry multiple times as each change will create a new claim in the system.

Claim made on -> date when someone published the claim.

After installing the Chrome extension, you can log in and use advanced functionalities. One of them is 'Dislike'.

By right-clicking on an article, the options provided by the Remedia extension are opened, by selecting Dislike, the article will become more transparent and less visible.

Your action will be visible to you and all people who follow you!

Alternate Title

1. Log in to the Remedia social network with a Google or Facebook account (link above right).

2. Install the Chrome extension (if you didn't)

4. Enter the email you used to open your Google or Facebook account. Submit.

5. After the input field appears, rewrite the code. Accept.

That's it! Now you can use the advanced functions of the Remedia Chrome extension.

Alternate Titles

Remedia's work so far:

Remedia, the best thing that happened to media!

On the Feed page, you can enter Status, Opinion and Claim Review

It is enough to enter the title, short description and content.

Below the fields for entering content, you will find fields for entering links. By entering page links in these fields, you 'show' the Chrome extension on which pages to display your content

Press Publish to publish your opinion. (It may be necessary to wait a moment while all links are generated)

Claim: "Drug research has not significantly advanced in the past half-century, with most new drugs being variations of existing ones." is Half True

Has beed claimed by:

Articles reviewing this claim:

Content you might like: