This article is within the scope of WikiProject Pharmacology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pharmacology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is this protein a dimer, or is the picture just intended to show 2 different views of the same thing? Could the image's author add a caption to the GM-CSF article page to clarify? Thanks. Xenobiologista (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like an attempt at parallel viewing stereogram but the viewing angles are so different I can't get tmem to fuse properly. Rod57 (talk) 18:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I don't really understand what is controversial about that part? Drug development companies always pay for trials(yeah, no one pay for them) and report results in press releases and publications. That is common practice. FDA do it job in estimating drug performance and approve or not approve particular drug for further studies and use as a treatment. TestPilot 05:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the controversy stems from the inherent conflict of interest: the person who co-owns the patent on the drug is also the same person who is the lead author of a study saying the drug is highly effective. That is, the study he wrote, which is supposed to be objective, scientific and unbiased, would likely result in increased sales of his drug, which makes him more money. Katalaveno 18:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I read this entry and looked at the source in the Phoenix. Why was the rest of the article about this study not quoted? "Korzenik says that he went to great lengths to “create a firewall” to protect the integrity of that study, which he and a colleague initiated when he was at Washington University, in St. Louis. The university established two committees to review the study results and process, and it even sent the compiled data to the outside clinicians who oversaw the bulk of the trials for individual review. Since receiving the patent, Korzenik has removed himself from further involvement in any research or promotion of the product."
Is there evidence of a notable controversy or can we change the section title to Crohns disease and just report the study findings if they are significant ? Rod57 (talk) 18:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)