3 ms·

So none of these studies can be read and reviewed on their own without knowing who is behind the study. How can a supplement company ever do a study on it's eff

So none of these studies can be read and reviewed on their own without knowing who is behind the study. How can a supplement company ever do a study on it's efficacy if it's going to get shot down because they sponsored it.

jstarfish 9y ago
They don't. It's a conflict of interest. You don't get to have a stake in your own investigation.
- md224 9y ago
  But then what do they do? Cross their fingers and wait for some random researchers to take an interest in their product? Sure, if the product becomes popular then it might attract research, but what if barely anyone tries your product because there's no research on it? Am I missing something or is this a catch-22? I used to think it was corrupt for companies to sponsor research on their own products. Then one day it occurred to me: who else is going to care about a product (especially one that's relatively unknown) more than the company trying to sell it?
  - RandomInteger4 9y ago
    What was the last supplement you saw that was patentable? Supplements in general are vaguely effective and mostly unpatented, meaning that the only incentive for a supplement company to perform "research" is for the purpose of marketing that they have some sort of research, but it's against the law for them to say that their supplements do anything specific outside the vague "bone health" etc. claims. Don't get me wrong, I take various supplements daily, but I'm also fully aware of how sketchy this industry is, especially where there are herbal supplements that were out there found not to contain any genetic material of the herbs the bottle was advertising.
    - md224 9y ago
      That's true, but I intended my comment to apply more generally to products of any kind. I'll reword it.
    - dominotw 9y ago
      I just checked the website of the only supplement I take https://www.onnit.com/patents/ https://www.onnit.com/patents/
  - jstarfish 9y ago
    Not quite. If you come up with a supplement to aid in sleeping, it's fine to conduct a study and use it in marketing to say hey, studies have shown it helps you sleep at night. The matter becomes grayer when there are concerns about the safety of a product. I'm personally willing to trust your study that your supplement aids with sleeping, but I don't trust that you're disclosing that your test subjects also all died of cancer. You have an interest in hiding the downside of your findings to sell more product. Put another way, the NRA's studies would find nothing wrong with arming every American man, woman and child-- for their own protection! Their interest is in selling guns. That owning a gun increases your chances of accidental death by x% is likely not a fact they will share with you.
    - dominotw 9y ago
      > but I don't trust that you're disclosing that your test subjects also all died of cancer. I might be wrong but I think this would be illegal also, Not quite sure what you are suggesting. > How can a supplement company ever do a study on it's efficacy > They don't. It's a conflict of interest. > it's fine to conduct a study and use it in marketing to say hey, studies have shown it helps you sleep at night.
  - Para2016 9y ago
    You're right. The conflicts should be announced at the beginning of the article/presentation. That's what's supposed to happen anyways.
alexandercrohde 9y ago
I'm unclear what your point is. Anybody can do a study on their own product, and anybody can lie in a study. The question is to the consumer, how much are we going to trust a particular study? This is why there are clear rules about putting funding sources in the study, and it seems like the NIH violated this deliberately.
- dominotw 9y ago
  Study is not scientific if it can't be peer reviewed without knowing funding sources.

jstarfish 9y ago

They don't. It's a conflict of interest. You don't get to have a stake in your own investigation.

md224 9y ago
But then what do they do? Cross their fingers and wait for some random researchers to take an interest in their product? Sure, if the product becomes popular then it might attract research, but what if barely anyone tries your product because there's no research on it? Am I missing something or is this a catch-22? I used to think it was corrupt for companies to sponsor research on their own products. Then one day it occurred to me: who else is going to care about a product (especially one that's relatively unknown) more than the company trying to sell it?
- RandomInteger4 9y ago
  What was the last supplement you saw that was patentable? Supplements in general are vaguely effective and mostly unpatented, meaning that the only incentive for a supplement company to perform "research" is for the purpose of marketing that they have some sort of research, but it's against the law for them to say that their supplements do anything specific outside the vague "bone health" etc. claims. Don't get me wrong, I take various supplements daily, but I'm also fully aware of how sketchy this industry is, especially where there are herbal supplements that were out there found not to contain any genetic material of the herbs the bottle was advertising.
  - md224 9y ago
    That's true, but I intended my comment to apply more generally to products of any kind. I'll reword it.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    I just checked the website of the only supplement I take https://www.onnit.com/patents/ https://www.onnit.com/patents/
- jstarfish 9y ago
  Not quite. If you come up with a supplement to aid in sleeping, it's fine to conduct a study and use it in marketing to say hey, studies have shown it helps you sleep at night. The matter becomes grayer when there are concerns about the safety of a product. I'm personally willing to trust your study that your supplement aids with sleeping, but I don't trust that you're disclosing that your test subjects also all died of cancer. You have an interest in hiding the downside of your findings to sell more product. Put another way, the NRA's studies would find nothing wrong with arming every American man, woman and child-- for their own protection! Their interest is in selling guns. That owning a gun increases your chances of accidental death by x% is likely not a fact they will share with you.
  - dominotw 9y ago
    > but I don't trust that you're disclosing that your test subjects also all died of cancer. I might be wrong but I think this would be illegal also, Not quite sure what you are suggesting. > How can a supplement company ever do a study on it's efficacy > They don't. It's a conflict of interest. > it's fine to conduct a study and use it in marketing to say hey, studies have shown it helps you sleep at night.
- Para2016 9y ago
  You're right. The conflicts should be announced at the beginning of the article/presentation. That's what's supposed to happen anyways.

alexandercrohde 9y ago

I'm unclear what your point is. Anybody can do a study on their own product, and anybody can lie in a study. The question is to the consumer, how much are we going to trust a particular study? This is why there are clear rules about putting funding sources in the study, and it seems like the NIH violated this deliberately.

dominotw 9y ago
Study is not scientific if it can't be peer reviewed without knowing funding sources.