Accusation #2: Ignores the 34 Studies "Supporting Atkins"
Previous Back to Corporate Threat Next
Atkins Responds to Criticism "Who Pays the Piper Calls the Tune"
You deny that your funding influences the results. "Speaking of funding," Dr. Atkins himself wrote, "the media jumped on the fact that the Dr. Robert C. Atkins Foundation funded the study, implying that the results were therefore suspect. Get real! Who do they think is funding the vast majority of funding for drug research? Pharmaceutical companies, of course. Does that mean that all research on prescription drugs is equally suspect?"[745]

In choosing the pharmaceutical industry, Dr. Atkins seems to have picked the wrong business to exemplify lack of funding-source influence. According to World Health Organization director Jonathan Quick, "researchers who publish or communicate results unfriendly to the [drug company] sponsors have faced intimidation, attempts to discredit them professionally, and legal threats to recover 'lost sales.'"[746]

Citing drug manufacturers' profit motive for skewing reports of their drugs' safety, an editorial in The Lancet reads "Tobacco is not the only aspect of medicine open to twisted corporate communications strategies... All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defense against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector."[747]

Highly statistically significant associations have consistently been found between sources of funding and outcome of drug studies. One medical professor looked at over a hundred studies of new drugs sponsored by the manufacturer. Not a single one found their drug inferior to the competitor's.[748] Other studies have found the same uncanny "coincidence."[749]

Corporations manipulate funded research in a variety of ways. Companies may be selective in publishing results, for example, and "may delay or not publish unfavorable results at all."[750] If the researchers find negative results or adverse effects, the corporation can just suppress the truth.[751] "Withholding the publication of unfavorable results," according to the Journal of the American Medical Association, "is not uncommon."[752]

Reports one insider, "Companies can play hardball, and many investigators can't play hardball back. You send the paper to the company for comments, and that's the danger. Can you handle the changes the company wants? Will you give in a little, a little more, then capitulate? It's tricky for those who need money for more studies." Or sometimes, corporations have been known to just ghost-write the entire articles themselves.[753]

The bottom-line is that whether you're talking about pharmaceuticals or tobacco, recent studies "have all found that physicians with financial ties to manufacturers were significantly less likely to criticize the safety or efficacy of these agents."[754] The bottomline... is the bottomline.

"Researchers with financial relationships with for-profit funders of research not surprisingly tend to overstate the favorableness of their own products and tend to be less likely to report unfavorable outcomes, especially issues surrounding safety or efficacy."[755] Is there any reason to suspect that your corporation is any different?
Previous Back to Corporate Threat Next
Atkins Facts:
> What the Experts Think of Atkins
> Faulty Science
> Short-Term Side Effects
> All Long-Term Studies on Atkins a Wash
> Long-Term Side Effects
> The Safer Alternative
> References 1-1160

  Create a printer friendly page for you to print! Get a PDF file of the contents!


This site is not affiliated with, sponsored by, or related in any way to Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.
If you would like to visit their site, please use the following link:

All Content Copyright ©2004-2015