Introduction

[Chris]

As with many drugs in the recent past, thousands of reports to the FDA of major problems with generic Wellbutrin were ignored until lawsuits were filed and won.[i ] Only then was the drug banned by the FDA. The avalanche of reports were ignored because they were “anecdotal,” lacking the official evidence provided by drug company- sponsored “research.” It is argued that individual reports of adverse effects -- even thousands of reports-- lack the definitive objectivity of official drug studies even though these studies are often funded by the drug companies. ‘Market forces’ is the new objectivity.[ii]

The opposition of ‘research studies’ with ‘anecdotal evidence’ is a false dichotomy which assumes the objective purity and disinterested science of pharmaceutical drug trials.
The term ‘anecdotal’ was chosen over such terms as “first-hand eye witness accounts” in order to emphasize the superiority of powerful corporate interests over the individual’s.

The term ‘anecdotal evidence’ is an oxymoron. An anecdote is by definition not evidence. In common parlance, an anecdote refers to a story that lacks verification, like a myth or a legend, often rambling, easily dismissed as apocryphal, as in this example from Webster’s: “Senility, as characterized by the telling of rambling anecdotes;” and in this example of dialogue:
Gary: “I enjoy telling interesting anecdotes, such as “My name is Gary and I’m from Gary, Indiana.”
Ansari Aziz: “ Gary, a fact is not an anecdote. Here’s an anecdote: ‘Today I met the most boring person in the world. His name is Gary.’

‘Anecdotal evidence’ is a euphemism for “we can ignore you” unless you can afford high priced lawyers and experts to take on the most powerful corporations and regulatory agencies in the world. To have any chance of success, your anecdote should involve death or major birth defects. [iii]


i http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2012/...sant-recalled/


ii http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/us...anted=all&_r=0
http://www.pharmalot.com/2012/07/mer...xx-harm-study/

http://www.naturalnews.com/034824_FD...leblowers.html
http://www.pharmalot.com/2012/07/fda...gency-lawyers/
http://ecohearth.com/eco-op-ed/1772-...onspiracy.html
http://www.regaffairs.net/news/fda-c...y-capture.html
http://dream-warrior.bestforumonline...tical-industry

http://www.cspinet.org/new/200606271.html
http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewh...er-speaks-out/
http://ecohearth.com/eco-op-ed/1772-...onspiracy.html


iii http://www.beasleyfirm.com/product-l...birth-defects/

http://www.orangecountylaw.com/lawye...y-1885557.html

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2012/06...ants-pregnancy

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encycloped...her-29525.html

[Luc]

The opposition of ‘research studies’ with ‘anecdotal evidence’ is a false dichotomy which assumes the objective purity and disinterested science of pharmaceutical drug trials. The term ‘anecdotal’ was chosen over such terms as “first-hand eye witness accounts” in order to emphasize the superiority of powerful corporate interests over the individual’s.

The term ‘anecdotal evidence’ is an oxymoron. An anecdote is by definition not evidence. In common parlance, an anecdote refers to a story that lacks verification, like a myth or a legend, often rambling, easily dismissed as apocryphal, as in this example from Webster’s: “Senility, as characterized by the telling of rambling anecdotes;” and in this example of dialogue:
Gary: “I enjoy telling interesting anecdotes, such as “My name is Gary and I’m from Gary, Indiana.”
Ansari Aziz: “ Gary, a fact is not an anecdote. Here’s an anecdote: ‘Today I met the most boring person in the world. His name is Gary.’

‘Anecdotal evidence’ is a euphemism for “we can ignore you” unless you can afford high priced lawyers and experts to take on the most powerful corporations and regulatory agencies in the world. To have any chance of success, your anecdote should involve death or major birth defects. [iii]

That is a great point. The bad side of NLP at its best. When you hear "anecdotal", your mind automatically discredits whatever there is to follow. But this "anecdotal" evidence is, in fact, closer to the truth than anything else, having gone through fewer systemic filters than the "research" they are flaunting. That is why, when you want to find as objective data as possible (about a drug for instance), the best way is to check what people in general say about it (in as many sources as possible). It's good to start with the Internet forums. With one caveat - the system knows the power of the Web, so it will be using paid-off posters to either discredit the real positive data on one drug, or prop up the fraudulent one on the other. As long as the Internet remains relatively free, it is definitely possible to sort out the truth.