I am so sorry for you guys, especially Joe Dickerson. This is just wrong. I used to have migraines for 20 years. You know the kind…completely debilitating 3 day migraines. I was prescribed about 100 Darvocet a month and phenergan suppositories. It wasn’t perfect but it helped. At least I had days without pain, unlike some here n this site. Now I am 65 and I have a form of fibromyalgia (which I thought was a made up disease-jokes on me.) that feels like the myelin sheaths on my nerves have been stripped off. Throbbing all the time, you want to jump out of your skin. I don’t go anywhere anymore except maybe once a week for food shopping, whatever day I am doing the best. Been to a regular doc and a Rheumatologist, they have helped exactly zero. Give me Lyrica (joke) and gabapentin another joke. Drs. used to help people, what happened?
ProPublica has been tracking drug company payments to doctors since 2010 through a project known as Dollars for Docs . Our first lookup tool included only seven companies, most of which were required to report their payments publicly as a condition of legal settlements. The tool now covers every drug and device company, thanks to the Physician Payment Sunshine Act , a part of the 2010 Affordable Care Act. The law required all drug and device companies to publicly report their payments. The first reports became public in 2014, covering the last five months of 2013; 2014 payments were released last year.
These include testing drugs on unrepresentative, "freakishly ideal" patients; comparing new drugs to something known to be ineffective, or effective at a different dose or if used differently; conducting trials that are too short or too small; and stopping trials early or late.  It also includes measuring uninformative outcomes; packaging the data so that it is misleading; ignoring patients who drop out (. using per-protocol analysis , where only patients who complete the trial are counted in the final results, rather than intention-to-treat analysis , where everyone who starts the trial is counted); changing the main outcome of the trial once it has finished; producing subgroup analyses that show apparently positive outcomes for certain tightly defined groups (such as Chinese men between the ages of 56 and 71), thereby hiding an overall negative outcome; and conducting " seeding trials ," where the objective is to persuade physicians to use the drug.