Fwd: SECOND OPINION, FROM REDFLAGSDAILY.COM, OCTOBER 29, 2003

[Guest guest]

Thu, 30 Oct 2003 18:21:54 -0800

SECOND OPINION, FROM REDFLAGSDAILY.COM, OCTOBER 29, 2003

 

 

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 29, 2003

 

REDFLAGSDAILY.COM

 

GO TO FLASH NEWS! AT RFD! THROUGHOUT THE DAY!

 

 

 

SECOND OPINION

 

Who Needs A Health Review Organization Funded By The Drug Industry?

 

By Nicholas Regush

 

Some of you may recall that RFD had launched a program recently that allowed web

sites to " introduce " themselves on our home page by taking out a banner ad. We

had hoped to make some money by attracting websites that could pass our strict

standards — namely no sleazy commercialism, which obviously excluded such things

as pushing dubious potions and doing web medical interviews leading to product

sales.

 

We did post banners for several web sites that met our rules, but for the most

part we were inundated by requests from doctors of various sorts running web

sites that we found to be appalling in their rip-off approaches. So rather than

accept their $550 dollars for the banner ads — and we soon rejected about 20 (so

you can add up the total, and that was just for starters) — we decided to can

the program. Good riddance. It gave me a bad headache having to read some of the

material on those sleazy web sites. Never again!

 

Why am I telling you this? First, I thought you might like to know what happened

to the program, but also because you will now know why I am totally

unsympathetic to medical organizations that mew and meow about their need for

funding, even if that funding smells to high heaven.

 

Which brings me to today’s focus — the Cochrane Collaboration. If you never

heard of it, don’t worry too much, because if they go ahead with allowing drug

company money to enter their world, they might as well fall off the planet

because no one will take them seriously anymore, except the drug companies and

perhaps those sleazy doctors who tried to buy " introduce yourself " spots at RFD.

 

The Cochrane Collaboration, as a current news item in the British Medical

Journal explains, " produces and disseminates systematic reviews of the evidence

about healthcare interventions. " You would think that an organization which has

become famous and respected (in the medical world) for doing these reviews would

absolutely avoid any drug company funding and that they would try a variety of

level-headed ways to get the cash they need to keep going.

 

Obviously the leadership of the Collaboration has some screws loose. They should

be fired and this bad episode should be put behind a group that has done good

work in the past.

 

Those who want the funding say industry money is crucial to their survival. If

that’s the case, then the Cochrane Collaboration should die. Who needs it?

 

If RFD ever reaches this type of crossroads, I’d rather pull the plug — and fast

than succumb to the WAY OF THE INTERNET. But I suspect we’ll be around a good

while.

 

THE BMJ NEWS ARTICLE ABOUT THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION

 

http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/327/7422/1005

 

THE COCHRANE COLLABORATION WEB SITE

 

http://www.cochrane.org/index0.htm

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears