<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Drug research: To test or to tout?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://tmap.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/drug-research-to-test-or-to-tout/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://tmap.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/drug-research-to-test-or-to-tout/</link>
	<description>the atypical antipsychotics scam, abilify, geodon, risperdal, seroquel, zyprexa</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 01 Nov 2009 16:44:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: MLC</title>
		<link>http://tmap.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/drug-research-to-test-or-to-tout/#comment-276</link>
		<dc:creator>MLC</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:26:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://tmap.wordpress.com/?p=169#comment-276</guid>
		<description>First I would like to thank you for drawing the public eye to the questionable ethics of pharmaceutical corporations such as Eli Lilly. After having done extensive research on the effectiveness of atypical anti-psychotics and their predecessors, it comes as no surprise to me that these new drugs are no more effective and pharmaceutical companies are doing everything they can to cash in on them anyway. Although this article does not address the greater issue of the severe negative effects of anti-psychotics in general, giving consumers a reason to question their prescriptions and begin researching these drugs themselves is the ultimate goal, and this is definitely the type of provocative post that could cause such a phenomenon. It is important that patients realize that they can not rely solely on FDA approval as evidence that medications are safe and effective; that much of what the FDA approves is influenced by biased research conducted by these corporations, and that even those that the FDA attempts to restrain manage to spearhead through direct marketing to practicing physicians. In criticism, however, I would like to mention that many sources and studies are alluded to, but no direct references or links to references are given besides the link to the St. Petersburg Times. When confronting an issue of such a purely scientific nature with so much contention in the research field, linking to authoritative electronic resources is truly a necessity in order to drive home the point. Although a minor issue, I also believe this post could have been improved upon by use of graphics or visual media, as these elements are essential in harnessing a would-be reader’s attention. I only offer these suggestions because I truly believe in what your blog is doing. I am an avid reader of Atypical Antipsychotics and look forward to many more insightful posts in the future.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First I would like to thank you for drawing the public eye to the questionable ethics of pharmaceutical corporations such as Eli Lilly. After having done extensive research on the effectiveness of atypical anti-psychotics and their predecessors, it comes as no surprise to me that these new drugs are no more effective and pharmaceutical companies are doing everything they can to cash in on them anyway. Although this article does not address the greater issue of the severe negative effects of anti-psychotics in general, giving consumers a reason to question their prescriptions and begin researching these drugs themselves is the ultimate goal, and this is definitely the type of provocative post that could cause such a phenomenon. It is important that patients realize that they can not rely solely on FDA approval as evidence that medications are safe and effective; that much of what the FDA approves is influenced by biased research conducted by these corporations, and that even those that the FDA attempts to restrain manage to spearhead through direct marketing to practicing physicians. In criticism, however, I would like to mention that many sources and studies are alluded to, but no direct references or links to references are given besides the link to the St. Petersburg Times. When confronting an issue of such a purely scientific nature with so much contention in the research field, linking to authoritative electronic resources is truly a necessity in order to drive home the point. Although a minor issue, I also believe this post could have been improved upon by use of graphics or visual media, as these elements are essential in harnessing a would-be reader’s attention. I only offer these suggestions because I truly believe in what your blog is doing. I am an avid reader of Atypical Antipsychotics and look forward to many more insightful posts in the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
